prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968,...

66
C 2010 Institute for Research in Classical Philosophy and Science All rights reserved ISSN 1549–4497 (online) ISSN 1549–4470 (print) ISSN 1549–4489 (CD-ROM) Aestimatio 7 (2010) 127--192 Anubio Reconsidered Stephan Heilen Universität Osnabrück [email protected] The Greek poet Anubio, who lived probably in the first century AD, was hitherto a rather shadowy figure in the history of ancient ast- rology. His poem was one of many ancient texts dealing with the alleged influences of the heavenly bodies on Earth, a product of that widely spread ancient view according to which astrology and astronomy were two indiscernible halves of the one and only astral science. There was no clear terminological distinction between these two parts, 1 and what we call ‘astrology’ was by many considered to be the practical application of the more theoretical sister science (‘astronomy’). 2 Important discoveries have now been made, and new insights gained, concerning one of these astrological manuals. Obbink’s new Teubner edition 3 of the fragments of the astrolo- gical poet Anubio grew out of his earlier edition [1999] of five papyri from Oxyrhynchus, namely, P.Oxy.66.4503--4507. 4 These new frag- ments 5 substantially deepened our knowledge of the poem of Anubio and called for a collection of all its fragments. It is praiseworthy that the editor, an expert in papyrology but not in astrology, agreed to undertake this difficult task and to make his collection of all relevant See Hübner 1989. I owe some observations in this review to personal com- 1 munications from W. Hübner. My borrowings from his review of the same work [2008] will be acknowledged in the notes. See, e.g., Ptolemy, Tetr. 1.1.1. 2 Dirk Obbink. ed. Anubio.Carmen astrologicum elegiacum. Bibliotheca Scrip- 3 torum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Munich/Leipzig: K. G. Saur, 2006.ISBN 978--3--598--71228--9.Pp.x + 79 (with 4 plates). / 64.95, $91.00. For a detailed discussion of Anubio’s life and times, his poem, its structure, 4 its relation to Firmicus’ Mathesis, its content, and its meter and versification, see Obbink 1999, 57--66. I agree on most, yet not all, detail of that otherwise very useful and informative discussion. The account of Gundel and Gundel 1966, 155--157, is largely obsolete and should be used with extreme caution. In Obbink 2006, they are F1 [4503 recto], F3 [4504], F4 [4503 verso], F5 5 [4505], and—among the fragmenta incerta—F19 [4506], F20 [4507].

Transcript of prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968,...

Page 1: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

Ccopy 2010 Institute for Research in Classical Philosophy and ScienceAll rights reserved

ISSN 1549ndash4497 (online) ISSN 1549ndash4470 (print) ISSN 1549ndash4489 (CD-ROM)Aestimatio 7 (2010) 127--192

Anubio Reconsidered

Stephan HeilenUniversitaumlt Osnabruumlck

stephanheilenuni-osnabrueckde

The Greek poet Anubio who lived probably in the first century ADwas hitherto a rather shadowy figure in the history of ancient ast-rology His poem was one of many ancient texts dealing with thealleged influences of the heavenly bodies on Earth a product ofthat widely spread ancient view according to which astrology andastronomy were two indiscernible halves of the one and only astralscience There was no clear terminological distinction between thesetwo parts1 and what we call lsquoastrologyrsquo was by many consideredto be the practical application of the more theoretical sister science(lsquoastronomyrsquo)2 Important discoveries have now been made and newinsights gained concerning one of these astrological manuals

Obbinkrsquos new Teubner edition3 of the fragments of the astrolo-gical poet Anubio grew out of his earlier edition [1999] of five papyrifrom Oxyrhynchus namely POxy 664503--45074 These new frag-ments5 substantially deepened our knowledge of the poem of Anubioand called for a collection of all its fragments It is praiseworthy thatthe editor an expert in papyrology but not in astrology agreed toundertake this difficult task and to make his collection of all relevant

See Huumlbner 1989 I owe some observations in this review to personal com-1

munications from WHuumlbner My borrowings from his review of the samework [2008] will be acknowledged in the notesSee eg Ptolemy Tetr 1112

Dirk Obbink edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacum Bibliotheca Scrip-3

torum Graecorum et Romanorum TeubnerianaMunichLeipzigKG Saur2006 ISBN 978--3--598--71228--9 Pp x + 79 (with 4 plates)curren 6495 $9100For a detailed discussion of Anubiorsquos life and times his poem its structure4

its relation to FirmicusrsquoMathesis its content and its meter and versificationsee Obbink 1999 57--66 I agree on most yet not all detail of that otherwisevery useful and informative discussion The account of Gundel and Gundel1966 155--157 is largely obsolete and should be used with extreme cautionIn Obbink 2006 they are F1 [4503 recto] F3 [4504] F4 [4503 verso] F55

[4505] andmdashamong the fragmenta incertamdashF19 [4506] F20 [4507]

128 Aestimatio

texts available within a few years after the first publication of thenew papyri6 I have rarely found it so exciting to work through a newbook Despite various shortcomings that will be addressed in thefollowing this book has the potential to stimulate much subsequentresearch as the length of the present review article indicates

Obbinkrsquos edition is based on all relevant texts except for oneimportant recently published fragment [PGen IV 157]7 It containsnine testimonia and 14 fragments with a total of about 100 originalverses In addition Obbink presents eight uncertain fragments [F15--F22] Obbink 2006 is therefore much more than a simple repro-duction of Obbink 1999 Its value is further increased by the factsthat Obbink 1999 is no longer available in print that the papyri arenow presented in a double page layout8mdashthe diplomatic transcript(left) facing the edited text (right) and that some details have beencorrected or updated9 The volume is illustrated with four plates [F1F3 F4 F5] As usual in the Teubner series the texts are presentedwithout translations or commentaries In the case of the new frag-ments from Oxyrhynchus English translations and commentaries areavailable in the previous publication [Obbink 1999] However manyof the texts collected in Obbink 2006 were never translated into anymodern language The expected readership is then experts in classi-cal philology andor in the history of the astral sciences in antiquity10Therefore detailed comments will be given below in the second partof this review article regarding each single testimoniumfragment

Various other scholarsmdashbut no historian of astrologymdashmade contributions6

see the acknowledgements in the praefatio and in the apparatus criticusSee Schubert 2009a and 2009b as well as Appendix 3 p 178 In a few cases7

Obbink did not use all relevant passages of a text [eg F21] more on thisbelowExcept for F19--F20 which are too badly preserved as to deserve such a8

layoutThere are however new typographical errors in Obbink 2006 which were9

absent in the original publicationNote however that the astronomical and calendrical computations in the10

fragments are not numerous and of an elementary character [see esp F2 andF161--7]

STEPHAN HEILEN 129

1Anubiorsquos place in the history of Greco-Roman astrology

First however I will offer a general survey in order to give the readeran idea of the philological methods that made this collection of morethan 20 fragments possible despite the fact that only three of thembear explicit attributions to Anubio [F2 F7 F9]11 This survey willlead to new insights concerning both the sources and the receptionof Anubio

It was WKroll who observed around 1900 while working withO Skutsch on the second volume of their edition of the Mathesis ofFirmicus Maternus12 that two Greek prose paraphrases one explic-itly derived from Anubio one without attribution both matched thecontent of Math 63--27 so closely as to leave no doubt that all threetexts went back to a common source which Kroll identified with Anu-bio13 Soon after (this was overlooked by many including Obbink) JHeeg [1910a] argued convincingly that the paraphrase without attri-bution does not go back to Anubio but to Dorotheus of Sidon authorof a lost astrological poem in dactylic hexameters of which scatteredGreek fragments and a complete (rather free) translation in Arabicare preserved14 Since these paraphrases will be mentioned frequentlyin the following I shall avoid confusion by calling them consistentlylsquoParAnubrsquo and lsquoParltDorgtrsquo15

An important new step towards the edition that is here underreview was the publication in 1950 of the astrological papyrus P Schu-bart 15 (PBerol inv 9587) since this publication led to SWein-stockrsquos discovery [1952 211] that its elegiacs distichs lsquoare almostverbally translated by Firmicus Maternus 6 31 78--85rsquo Chapters629--31 of Firmicusrsquo Mathesis contain a large collection of examples

On F13 see p 15711

Vol 1 (1897) and vol 2 (1913) repr with addenda by K Ziegler [see Kroll12

Skutsch and Ziegler 1968]See Krollrsquos analysis in 1900 159--16013

See Heeg 1910a Kroll acknowledged the correctness of Heegrsquos argumenta-14

tion in 1913 [see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968 271] Dorotheus wasedited by Pingree [1976]For full references to the available editions of these texts see the bibliography15

below As will be shown in the following ParAnub ismdashdespite its explicitattribution to Anubiomdashmostly derived from Dorotheus Its short title willtherefore be expanded later to lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

130 Aestimatio

more precisely they contain typical alignments which were probablyderived at least partially from the analysis of the charts of historicalindividuals and serve to illustrate and deepen the theoretical instruc-tion concerning the effects of astrological aspects in the previouschapters 63--27 Since Math 63--27 has a complete Greek equivalent in ParAnub and 629--31 has a partial Greek equivalent in the elegiac distichs of PSchubart 15 and Anubio is the only known astrological poet to have written in ele-giac distichs16

it is reasonable to infer that all of Math 63--31 goes back to AnubioThis assumption was further substantiated by Obbinkrsquos discoverythat the new elegiac fragments F3--F5 from Oxyrhynchus almost ver-bally correspond to sections in Math 629--3117 thereby forming agroup with P Schubart 15 [= F6]

This brilliant philological reconstruction done by several gener-ations of scholars leaves no reasonable doubt that all Greek astrolog-ical texts in elegiac distichs that correspond with passages in Math63--31 derive from the lost poem of Anubio Other astrological textsin elegiac distichs which have no equivalent in Math 63--31 are verylikely to be of Anubio too Yet these cases are not certain and needtherefore to be listed as fragmenta incerta This is the basic con-vincing rationale that underlies Obbinkrsquos selection and arrangementof the fragments In some cases however Obbink did not apply hisown criteria rigorously enough or there are special circumstances thatneed to be taken into consideration These cases which will be dis-cussed below suggest a partial rearrangement of both the testimoniaand the fragments

Before we embark upon the discussion of single testimonia andfragments one question of fundamental importance remains to beaddressed What is the actual source that Firmicus drew on in Math63--31 Is it

Authors from late antiquity such as Hephaestio as well as authors from the16

Byzantine period speak of Anubio in a way that shows that he was the onlyelegiac astrological poet whom they knew ofF3 = 62923--305 F4 = 6306--7 F5 = 63020--2217

STEPHAN HEILEN 131

(a) Anubiorsquos original poem or(b) the preserved paraphrase ParAnub or(c) the poem of Dorotheus of Sidon18

While all scholars so far either take one of these various possibili-ties or hesitate between (a) and (b) I do not find their argumentscompelling I wish to propose instead a hitherto unexplored alter-native namely that all these authors (Anubio Dorotheus Firmicusand also pseudo-Manetho) drew independently from each other ona common source one that was authoritative enough to influencenumerous successors I will now outline briefly the main argumentsfor this view

Firmicus never mentions the poet Anubio by name19 and thereis no evidence that he knew the elegiac poem at all As Obbink andothers have rightly observed Firmicus treats his astrological topicsin much more detail than the preserved corresponding passages ofAnubiorsquos poem do This is usually explained as the result of textualexpansions and changes either by Firmicus himself or by the authorof ParAnub (if Firmicus drew on that) or by both of them20 Buta close inspection of the material gives rise to serious doubts Forexample F4 b 7--9 says exactly the opposite of Math 630621

Let us take a closer look at F3 The whole hexameter F3 ii 4 hasno equivalent in the corresponding passageMath 62923 whileMath6301 et Sol sit in MC Luna et horoscopo in Cancro constitutis hasno counterpart in F3 ii 15--16 The immediately preceding conditionregarding Mars is less clearly defined in Anubio [F3 ii 14] than inFirmicus and the following condition regarding Saturnrsquos aspect tothe Moon bears in each of the two texts a specification that cannotbe found in the other one (μοῦνος pariter) Interestingly both theseconditions are fulfilled perfectly in the chart of Oedipus which formsthe last part of Math 6301 so as to suggest that both Anubio andFirmicus drew in a selective manner on a common prose source which

This is the view of Heeg [1910a] and Stegemann [1943]18

I agree on this with Boll [1909 2371] On T3 which must be rejected as a19

testimonium see p 140Math 6302 for example has no counterpart in Anub F3 The preceding20

paragraph [Math 6301] can be paralleled with F3 ii 10--18 and the followingparagraph [Math 6303] with F3 ii 19--24See Obbink 1999 80 for an attempt to explain this21

132 Aestimatio

already contained that horoscope as an example Note that these ide-alized horoscopes at 6301 (Oedipus) 63011--12 (Paris) 63022--26(Demosthenes Homer Plato Pindar Archilochus Archimedes) and63137 (Thersites) were absent from Anubiorsquos poem as F3 ii 10--18[~Math 6301] and F5 b [~Math 63022] show where Firmicusrsquo finalremarks that these were the horoscopes of Oedipus and Demosthenesrespectively are missing Moreover it is very unlikely that Firmicushimself made them up (except maybe that of Archimedes the mostrecent historical individual and the only one from Sicily Firmicusrsquohomeland) These ideal horoscopes look quite archaic in their sim-plicity and it is noteworthy that the core of the Corpus Manethoni-anum ie pseudo-Manetho 23622 which can be dated to the earlysecond century thanks to the authorrsquos autobiographical horoscope[pseudo-Manetho 6[3]738--750]23 also contains in the same book thehoroscope of Oedipus [pseudo-Manetho 6[3]160--169] If one exam-ines the details one finds that both authors pseudo-Manetho aswell as Firmicus seem to have derived this horoscope from a com-mon source independently from each other24 This strongly indicatesthat Firmicusrsquo ideal horoscopes in 630--31 are from the first centuryAD or even earlier In order to conclude this part of the argumentwith regard to Anubio it is important to keep in mind that Firmicusseems to have drawn not on Anubio nor on paraphrases derived fromAnubio but on the same source as Anubio Whoever prefers to stick

These are books 1 2 and 3 in the restored order in Koechly 185822

The alignment can be dated to AD 80 May 272823

This is all the more obvious because also the context in both texts reveals24

striking parallels which however cannot be explained on the hypothesisthat Firmicus used pseudo-Manetho Compare for example the followingpassages that precede the horoscope of Oedipus in both texts

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

6[3]151--153 629206[3]154--159 629226[3]180--184 62924

and so forth It would go beyond the scope of this article to compare bothbooks systematically but there is no doubt that pseudo-Manetho and Fir-micus drew their examples from the same source

STEPHAN HEILEN 133

to the commonly accepted view that Firmicus drew his material inbook 6 from Anubio must then resort to the unlikely hypothesis that Firmicus regularly checkedAnubio against Anubiorsquos source (the lsquocommon sourcersquo) becauseotherwise Firmicus would not have found the references to OedipusDemosthenes and others and deny the validity of the arguments that will be adduced later withregard to ParAnub [p 134]It is now time to take a closer look at Dorotheus As has long

been observed the Arabic translation of Dorotheus (hereafter DorArab) contains a long section [214--33] that corresponds so obvi-ously with ParAnub() as to make Pingree [1976 344--367] includeParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorotheus Pingree[1976 344] assumed that Anubio used Dorotheus and that the text ofAnubio was then translated into Latin by Firmicus But why shoulda poet find it attractive to rephrase in a closely related meter (ele-giac distichs) astrological material that had already been versified indactylic hexameters by Dorotheus An additional more compellingargument against Pingreersquos view is the following as the new frag-ments F3 F4 F5 combined with P Schubart 15 [F6] show Anubiodid the same as Firmicus namely after his exposition of generalrules concerning the effects of the aspects [= Math 63--27] he con-tinued with the presentation of specific examples [= Math 629--31]25Since these examples were (as the Arabic version shows) completelyabsent from Dorotheusrsquo poem Anubio cannot have drawn this ma-terial from Dorotheus And since the general rules and the specific

Compare Firmicusrsquo explicit remarks in the transitional chapter 628 which25

begins thus[6281] completis his omnibus [ie 63--27] antequam sermo nos-ter ad horoscoporum transferatur exempla [ie 629--31] illud pru-dentiam tuam breviter admonemus etc

and ends thus [6282]ut quicquid generali explicatione monstravimus [ie 63--27] specia-liter rursus iunctis sententiis explicemus

[6281] Now that we have finished all these discussions and beforeour work turns to the examples concerning the ascendant we mustbriefly call to your attention that [6282] so that whatever wehave described in general we shall show again in detail

134 Aestimatio

examples form a unit whose two parts logically follow upon eachother it is reasonable to assume that already in Anubiorsquos and Fir-micusrsquo common source they formed a unit Dorotheus arranged thematerial differently After the exposition of general rules for aspectshe decided to fill the remaining part of his second book with othermaterial from the common source namely the effects of the planetsin the centers [221--27] and in each otherrsquos houses and terms [228--33] this is material that Firmicus had already treated earlier in hisfifth book and Anubio must also have treated it as F22 shows26Table 1 illustrates the correspondences including also the core poemof the Corpus Manethonianum ie pseudo-Manetho 236 [123]The table is based on the order of the material in Firmicus whichmust have been that of the common source because it logically pro-ceeds from the isolated effects of single planets in certain places tothe combined effects of two or more planets aspecting each otherWhile Pingree wrongly thought that Anubio used Dorotheus hewisely included ParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorothe-us (this is the last important clarification to make here) For despitethe explicit attribution to Anubio in the heading of the first chapterthe anonymous excerptor obviously also had at his disposal a copyof Dorotheus whose name he mentions twice explicitly27 Analysisof this paraphrase shows that the scribe very soon after the startswitched from Anubio to Dorotheus and one gets the impressionthat he kept following Dorotheus until the end Note however thatthe manuscript attribution of this paraphrasersquos chapters on aspectsto Anubio is not just a scribal mistake or guesswork of a later copyistin the same manuscript the immediately preceding chapter containsliteral quotations of elegiac distichs from Anubio [= F8] Appar-ently the scribe really started the paraphrase [T8] from Anubio andswitched then to Dorotheus

This insight is important because it makes Table 1 more easilyunderstandable and has the consequence that not only F10 (fromParltDorgt) but also F9 (from ParAnub [= T8] which will in thefollowing be more appropriately called ParAnubltet Dorgt) must

On F22 see p 16926

T8342 φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Δωρόθεος κτλ = Pingree 1976 3556 andmdashbeyond the27

section that Obbink included in his editionmdash36119--20 φησὶ γὰρ καὶ Δωρό-

θεος κτλ

STEPHAN HEILEN 135

DorA

rab

ParA

nub

Anu

bio

pseu

do-M

anetho

aFirm

icusM

ath

Subjectb

220

--27

()c

F223--4

3[2]8

--226

Lost

inthela-

cuna

before

55

The

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquointhe

four

centers(κ

εντροθεσία

ι)

228

- -33

T841

1--54

F226--7

F2214

--15

F2211

--12

2[1]1

41--3

9655--6

dThe

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquoin

each

othe

rrsquosho

uses

and

term

s(τ

οπικ

αὶδια

κρίσ

εις)

Effe

ctsof

214

215

216

217

218

--19

T81--75

T876

--207

T820

8--302

+30

5--307

f

T830

2--304

T830

8--410

(F10

2)e

mdashmdash

(F9)g

F105h

mdashmdash

(F10

1)

hF1

4

3 [2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

mdashmdash

2[1]3

97--4

85

63--8

69--14

615

--20

621

622

--27

trineaspe

cts

squa

reaspe

cts

oppo

sitio

nssextile

aspe

cts

conjun

ctions

mdashmdash

mdashmdash

F3--F

66[3]

629

--31

Typ

ical

charts

Boo

knu

mbe

rsaregivenaccordingto

themss

trad

ition

followed

byKoechlyrsquosrestored

orde

rinpa

renthe

ses[18

58]

a

The

Greek

keywords

inpa

renthe

sesde

rivefrom

Dorothe

usseePingree

1976

367

21--23(quo

tedin

fullbe

low)

b

Thisis

thefin

alsectionin

Pingree

1976

361

--367

Obb

inkrig

htly

omits

itas

irrelevan

tto

Anu

bio

c

Mostof

this

long

chap

teris

lost

inthelacuna

before

55

only

thefin

alsectionis

preserved

SeeKroll

Skutsch

d

andZiegler19

682

58appcrit

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

e

T830

5--307

isan

adde

ndum

(after

theconc

luding

remarks

onsextile

aspe

cts)

ontheop

positio

nof

theluminaries

f

Itequa

lsFirm

icusM

ath618

but

ismissing

inDorA

rab

216Thu

sthescrib

ewas

follo

wingDorothe

ushe

re

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

153on

F9

g

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

h

Table1

136 Aestimatio

be eliminated from the list of fragments of Anubio This crucial pointwill be substantiated with detailed argument in Appendix 2 [p 173]

Altogether then it is clear that this paraphrase despite its ini-tial attribution to Anubio is almost entirely derived from DorotheusIt seems most plausible to assume the following relationships betweenthe authors in question

Common Source

Firmicus

Pseudo-Manetho

Par ltDorgt Par Anub ltet Dorgt

AnubioDorotheus

Can the lsquoCommon Sourcersquo be identified Firmicus provides two cluesfor an answer After his quotation from the chapters on κεντροθεσίαι

and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις he assures Mavortius that he left out ab-solutely nothing of what lsquothe divine men of oldrsquo had put forth

haec tibi sunt omnia Mavorti decus nostrum specialiter inti-mata nec a nobis aliquid est praetermissum quod diviniveteres et istius interpretes disciplinae prudentis sollertiae etdocti sermonis studio protulerunt [Firmicus Math 571]These matters have now all been explained to you in detailmy dear Mavortius and nothing has been left out by meof what the divine men of old and the expounders of thisdiscipline produced in their eagerness for prognostic expertiseand learned discourse [my trans with borrowings from Bram1975 180]

He is probably referring to Nechepso and Petosiris the major author-ities of Hellenistic astrology28 The second clue is from the presence

See also Firmicus Math 5prooem 6 animus [scil noster ] divina inspira-28

tione formatus totum conatus est quod didicerat explicare ut quidquid diviniveteres ex Aegyptiis adytis protulerunt ad Tarpeiae rupis templa perferretBoll [1909 2371] interprets this as lsquoeinen deutlichen Hinweis auf die AumlgypterdhNechepso-Petosirisrsquo See also Math 851 divini illi viri et sanctissimaereligionis antistites Petosiris et Nechepso

STEPHAN HEILEN 137

of that large collection of more than 100 typical charts preservedin Firmicus Math 629--31 The only prose collection of such exam-ples from the time before Valens that we know of are the (now lost)παραδειγματικαὶ γενέσεις of lsquothe Egyptian authorsrsquo that Ptolemymentions in Tetr 1211829 Ptolemy probably means Nechepso andPetosiris Both clues hint then at the same source30 Even if cer-tainty is impossible it is very likely that all three poets AnubioDorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified extensive prose sectionsfrom the famous authoritative manual of Nechepso and Petosirisand that Firmicus translated them in books 5 and 631 That wouldalso explain why almost nothing of that lsquobible of astrologyrsquo32 is pre-served in the original

If Obbink and earlier scholars starting with Riess33 are rightwith their dating of Anubio to the reign of Nero which is the timeof Dorotheus both poets may have versified their common sourcemore or less contemporaneously independently from each other ina period when astrology was especially en vogue so much so that itgave rise both to versifications by poets wishing to satisfy the highdemand of practitioners for summaries that could easily be learnedby heart and to such derisory texts by critics as the epigram of the

Ptolemy mentions these exemplary horoscopes in the context of the Egyptian29

system of terms In Firmicusrsquo Latin adaptation references to the astrologicalterms are admittedly rare see eg Math 6302 in finibus Mercurii and6306 in finibus VenerisNote that Firmicus moves on from Math 571 where he mentions the divini30

veteres to the immediately following sixth book without indicating a changeof sourceAlready Boll [1909 2371] thought that the ultimate source of Math 63--31

27 on aspects was the manual of Nechepso and Petosiris and still earlierKroll [1906 62] had expressed his opinion that Valensrsquo long chapter on as-pects [Anthol 217] went back to Nechepso and Petosiris ad Nechepsonemet Petosiridem haec redire haud dissimile est veri To my knowledge how-ever no comprehensive view of Firmicus and the three astrological poetslike the one proposed here has been put forth so far Note that besidesValens Anthol 217 there is another prose treatise on aspects in papyrusPSI 158 [see Boll 1914 5--10] whose internal order is like that of Anthol217 confused and it is unclear which relationship they have to the textsthat are included in the stemma aboveBoll 1908 106 = Boll 1950 4 (die Astrologenbibel)32

See Riess 1894 col 2322 and Riess 1895 186n133

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 2: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

128 Aestimatio

texts available within a few years after the first publication of thenew papyri6 I have rarely found it so exciting to work through a newbook Despite various shortcomings that will be addressed in thefollowing this book has the potential to stimulate much subsequentresearch as the length of the present review article indicates

Obbinkrsquos edition is based on all relevant texts except for oneimportant recently published fragment [PGen IV 157]7 It containsnine testimonia and 14 fragments with a total of about 100 originalverses In addition Obbink presents eight uncertain fragments [F15--F22] Obbink 2006 is therefore much more than a simple repro-duction of Obbink 1999 Its value is further increased by the factsthat Obbink 1999 is no longer available in print that the papyri arenow presented in a double page layout8mdashthe diplomatic transcript(left) facing the edited text (right) and that some details have beencorrected or updated9 The volume is illustrated with four plates [F1F3 F4 F5] As usual in the Teubner series the texts are presentedwithout translations or commentaries In the case of the new frag-ments from Oxyrhynchus English translations and commentaries areavailable in the previous publication [Obbink 1999] However manyof the texts collected in Obbink 2006 were never translated into anymodern language The expected readership is then experts in classi-cal philology andor in the history of the astral sciences in antiquity10Therefore detailed comments will be given below in the second partof this review article regarding each single testimoniumfragment

Various other scholarsmdashbut no historian of astrologymdashmade contributions6

see the acknowledgements in the praefatio and in the apparatus criticusSee Schubert 2009a and 2009b as well as Appendix 3 p 178 In a few cases7

Obbink did not use all relevant passages of a text [eg F21] more on thisbelowExcept for F19--F20 which are too badly preserved as to deserve such a8

layoutThere are however new typographical errors in Obbink 2006 which were9

absent in the original publicationNote however that the astronomical and calendrical computations in the10

fragments are not numerous and of an elementary character [see esp F2 andF161--7]

STEPHAN HEILEN 129

1Anubiorsquos place in the history of Greco-Roman astrology

First however I will offer a general survey in order to give the readeran idea of the philological methods that made this collection of morethan 20 fragments possible despite the fact that only three of thembear explicit attributions to Anubio [F2 F7 F9]11 This survey willlead to new insights concerning both the sources and the receptionof Anubio

It was WKroll who observed around 1900 while working withO Skutsch on the second volume of their edition of the Mathesis ofFirmicus Maternus12 that two Greek prose paraphrases one explic-itly derived from Anubio one without attribution both matched thecontent of Math 63--27 so closely as to leave no doubt that all threetexts went back to a common source which Kroll identified with Anu-bio13 Soon after (this was overlooked by many including Obbink) JHeeg [1910a] argued convincingly that the paraphrase without attri-bution does not go back to Anubio but to Dorotheus of Sidon authorof a lost astrological poem in dactylic hexameters of which scatteredGreek fragments and a complete (rather free) translation in Arabicare preserved14 Since these paraphrases will be mentioned frequentlyin the following I shall avoid confusion by calling them consistentlylsquoParAnubrsquo and lsquoParltDorgtrsquo15

An important new step towards the edition that is here underreview was the publication in 1950 of the astrological papyrus P Schu-bart 15 (PBerol inv 9587) since this publication led to SWein-stockrsquos discovery [1952 211] that its elegiacs distichs lsquoare almostverbally translated by Firmicus Maternus 6 31 78--85rsquo Chapters629--31 of Firmicusrsquo Mathesis contain a large collection of examples

On F13 see p 15711

Vol 1 (1897) and vol 2 (1913) repr with addenda by K Ziegler [see Kroll12

Skutsch and Ziegler 1968]See Krollrsquos analysis in 1900 159--16013

See Heeg 1910a Kroll acknowledged the correctness of Heegrsquos argumenta-14

tion in 1913 [see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968 271] Dorotheus wasedited by Pingree [1976]For full references to the available editions of these texts see the bibliography15

below As will be shown in the following ParAnub ismdashdespite its explicitattribution to Anubiomdashmostly derived from Dorotheus Its short title willtherefore be expanded later to lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

130 Aestimatio

more precisely they contain typical alignments which were probablyderived at least partially from the analysis of the charts of historicalindividuals and serve to illustrate and deepen the theoretical instruc-tion concerning the effects of astrological aspects in the previouschapters 63--27 Since Math 63--27 has a complete Greek equivalent in ParAnub and 629--31 has a partial Greek equivalent in the elegiac distichs of PSchubart 15 and Anubio is the only known astrological poet to have written in ele-giac distichs16

it is reasonable to infer that all of Math 63--31 goes back to AnubioThis assumption was further substantiated by Obbinkrsquos discoverythat the new elegiac fragments F3--F5 from Oxyrhynchus almost ver-bally correspond to sections in Math 629--3117 thereby forming agroup with P Schubart 15 [= F6]

This brilliant philological reconstruction done by several gener-ations of scholars leaves no reasonable doubt that all Greek astrolog-ical texts in elegiac distichs that correspond with passages in Math63--31 derive from the lost poem of Anubio Other astrological textsin elegiac distichs which have no equivalent in Math 63--31 are verylikely to be of Anubio too Yet these cases are not certain and needtherefore to be listed as fragmenta incerta This is the basic con-vincing rationale that underlies Obbinkrsquos selection and arrangementof the fragments In some cases however Obbink did not apply hisown criteria rigorously enough or there are special circumstances thatneed to be taken into consideration These cases which will be dis-cussed below suggest a partial rearrangement of both the testimoniaand the fragments

Before we embark upon the discussion of single testimonia andfragments one question of fundamental importance remains to beaddressed What is the actual source that Firmicus drew on in Math63--31 Is it

Authors from late antiquity such as Hephaestio as well as authors from the16

Byzantine period speak of Anubio in a way that shows that he was the onlyelegiac astrological poet whom they knew ofF3 = 62923--305 F4 = 6306--7 F5 = 63020--2217

STEPHAN HEILEN 131

(a) Anubiorsquos original poem or(b) the preserved paraphrase ParAnub or(c) the poem of Dorotheus of Sidon18

While all scholars so far either take one of these various possibili-ties or hesitate between (a) and (b) I do not find their argumentscompelling I wish to propose instead a hitherto unexplored alter-native namely that all these authors (Anubio Dorotheus Firmicusand also pseudo-Manetho) drew independently from each other ona common source one that was authoritative enough to influencenumerous successors I will now outline briefly the main argumentsfor this view

Firmicus never mentions the poet Anubio by name19 and thereis no evidence that he knew the elegiac poem at all As Obbink andothers have rightly observed Firmicus treats his astrological topicsin much more detail than the preserved corresponding passages ofAnubiorsquos poem do This is usually explained as the result of textualexpansions and changes either by Firmicus himself or by the authorof ParAnub (if Firmicus drew on that) or by both of them20 Buta close inspection of the material gives rise to serious doubts Forexample F4 b 7--9 says exactly the opposite of Math 630621

Let us take a closer look at F3 The whole hexameter F3 ii 4 hasno equivalent in the corresponding passageMath 62923 whileMath6301 et Sol sit in MC Luna et horoscopo in Cancro constitutis hasno counterpart in F3 ii 15--16 The immediately preceding conditionregarding Mars is less clearly defined in Anubio [F3 ii 14] than inFirmicus and the following condition regarding Saturnrsquos aspect tothe Moon bears in each of the two texts a specification that cannotbe found in the other one (μοῦνος pariter) Interestingly both theseconditions are fulfilled perfectly in the chart of Oedipus which formsthe last part of Math 6301 so as to suggest that both Anubio andFirmicus drew in a selective manner on a common prose source which

This is the view of Heeg [1910a] and Stegemann [1943]18

I agree on this with Boll [1909 2371] On T3 which must be rejected as a19

testimonium see p 140Math 6302 for example has no counterpart in Anub F3 The preceding20

paragraph [Math 6301] can be paralleled with F3 ii 10--18 and the followingparagraph [Math 6303] with F3 ii 19--24See Obbink 1999 80 for an attempt to explain this21

132 Aestimatio

already contained that horoscope as an example Note that these ide-alized horoscopes at 6301 (Oedipus) 63011--12 (Paris) 63022--26(Demosthenes Homer Plato Pindar Archilochus Archimedes) and63137 (Thersites) were absent from Anubiorsquos poem as F3 ii 10--18[~Math 6301] and F5 b [~Math 63022] show where Firmicusrsquo finalremarks that these were the horoscopes of Oedipus and Demosthenesrespectively are missing Moreover it is very unlikely that Firmicushimself made them up (except maybe that of Archimedes the mostrecent historical individual and the only one from Sicily Firmicusrsquohomeland) These ideal horoscopes look quite archaic in their sim-plicity and it is noteworthy that the core of the Corpus Manethoni-anum ie pseudo-Manetho 23622 which can be dated to the earlysecond century thanks to the authorrsquos autobiographical horoscope[pseudo-Manetho 6[3]738--750]23 also contains in the same book thehoroscope of Oedipus [pseudo-Manetho 6[3]160--169] If one exam-ines the details one finds that both authors pseudo-Manetho aswell as Firmicus seem to have derived this horoscope from a com-mon source independently from each other24 This strongly indicatesthat Firmicusrsquo ideal horoscopes in 630--31 are from the first centuryAD or even earlier In order to conclude this part of the argumentwith regard to Anubio it is important to keep in mind that Firmicusseems to have drawn not on Anubio nor on paraphrases derived fromAnubio but on the same source as Anubio Whoever prefers to stick

These are books 1 2 and 3 in the restored order in Koechly 185822

The alignment can be dated to AD 80 May 272823

This is all the more obvious because also the context in both texts reveals24

striking parallels which however cannot be explained on the hypothesisthat Firmicus used pseudo-Manetho Compare for example the followingpassages that precede the horoscope of Oedipus in both texts

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

6[3]151--153 629206[3]154--159 629226[3]180--184 62924

and so forth It would go beyond the scope of this article to compare bothbooks systematically but there is no doubt that pseudo-Manetho and Fir-micus drew their examples from the same source

STEPHAN HEILEN 133

to the commonly accepted view that Firmicus drew his material inbook 6 from Anubio must then resort to the unlikely hypothesis that Firmicus regularly checkedAnubio against Anubiorsquos source (the lsquocommon sourcersquo) becauseotherwise Firmicus would not have found the references to OedipusDemosthenes and others and deny the validity of the arguments that will be adduced later withregard to ParAnub [p 134]It is now time to take a closer look at Dorotheus As has long

been observed the Arabic translation of Dorotheus (hereafter DorArab) contains a long section [214--33] that corresponds so obvi-ously with ParAnub() as to make Pingree [1976 344--367] includeParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorotheus Pingree[1976 344] assumed that Anubio used Dorotheus and that the text ofAnubio was then translated into Latin by Firmicus But why shoulda poet find it attractive to rephrase in a closely related meter (ele-giac distichs) astrological material that had already been versified indactylic hexameters by Dorotheus An additional more compellingargument against Pingreersquos view is the following as the new frag-ments F3 F4 F5 combined with P Schubart 15 [F6] show Anubiodid the same as Firmicus namely after his exposition of generalrules concerning the effects of the aspects [= Math 63--27] he con-tinued with the presentation of specific examples [= Math 629--31]25Since these examples were (as the Arabic version shows) completelyabsent from Dorotheusrsquo poem Anubio cannot have drawn this ma-terial from Dorotheus And since the general rules and the specific

Compare Firmicusrsquo explicit remarks in the transitional chapter 628 which25

begins thus[6281] completis his omnibus [ie 63--27] antequam sermo nos-ter ad horoscoporum transferatur exempla [ie 629--31] illud pru-dentiam tuam breviter admonemus etc

and ends thus [6282]ut quicquid generali explicatione monstravimus [ie 63--27] specia-liter rursus iunctis sententiis explicemus

[6281] Now that we have finished all these discussions and beforeour work turns to the examples concerning the ascendant we mustbriefly call to your attention that [6282] so that whatever wehave described in general we shall show again in detail

134 Aestimatio

examples form a unit whose two parts logically follow upon eachother it is reasonable to assume that already in Anubiorsquos and Fir-micusrsquo common source they formed a unit Dorotheus arranged thematerial differently After the exposition of general rules for aspectshe decided to fill the remaining part of his second book with othermaterial from the common source namely the effects of the planetsin the centers [221--27] and in each otherrsquos houses and terms [228--33] this is material that Firmicus had already treated earlier in hisfifth book and Anubio must also have treated it as F22 shows26Table 1 illustrates the correspondences including also the core poemof the Corpus Manethonianum ie pseudo-Manetho 236 [123]The table is based on the order of the material in Firmicus whichmust have been that of the common source because it logically pro-ceeds from the isolated effects of single planets in certain places tothe combined effects of two or more planets aspecting each otherWhile Pingree wrongly thought that Anubio used Dorotheus hewisely included ParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorothe-us (this is the last important clarification to make here) For despitethe explicit attribution to Anubio in the heading of the first chapterthe anonymous excerptor obviously also had at his disposal a copyof Dorotheus whose name he mentions twice explicitly27 Analysisof this paraphrase shows that the scribe very soon after the startswitched from Anubio to Dorotheus and one gets the impressionthat he kept following Dorotheus until the end Note however thatthe manuscript attribution of this paraphrasersquos chapters on aspectsto Anubio is not just a scribal mistake or guesswork of a later copyistin the same manuscript the immediately preceding chapter containsliteral quotations of elegiac distichs from Anubio [= F8] Appar-ently the scribe really started the paraphrase [T8] from Anubio andswitched then to Dorotheus

This insight is important because it makes Table 1 more easilyunderstandable and has the consequence that not only F10 (fromParltDorgt) but also F9 (from ParAnub [= T8] which will in thefollowing be more appropriately called ParAnubltet Dorgt) must

On F22 see p 16926

T8342 φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Δωρόθεος κτλ = Pingree 1976 3556 andmdashbeyond the27

section that Obbink included in his editionmdash36119--20 φησὶ γὰρ καὶ Δωρό-

θεος κτλ

STEPHAN HEILEN 135

DorA

rab

ParA

nub

Anu

bio

pseu

do-M

anetho

aFirm

icusM

ath

Subjectb

220

--27

()c

F223--4

3[2]8

--226

Lost

inthela-

cuna

before

55

The

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquointhe

four

centers(κ

εντροθεσία

ι)

228

- -33

T841

1--54

F226--7

F2214

--15

F2211

--12

2[1]1

41--3

9655--6

dThe

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquoin

each

othe

rrsquosho

uses

and

term

s(τ

οπικ

αὶδια

κρίσ

εις)

Effe

ctsof

214

215

216

217

218

--19

T81--75

T876

--207

T820

8--302

+30

5--307

f

T830

2--304

T830

8--410

(F10

2)e

mdashmdash

(F9)g

F105h

mdashmdash

(F10

1)

hF1

4

3 [2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

mdashmdash

2[1]3

97--4

85

63--8

69--14

615

--20

621

622

--27

trineaspe

cts

squa

reaspe

cts

oppo

sitio

nssextile

aspe

cts

conjun

ctions

mdashmdash

mdashmdash

F3--F

66[3]

629

--31

Typ

ical

charts

Boo

knu

mbe

rsaregivenaccordingto

themss

trad

ition

followed

byKoechlyrsquosrestored

orde

rinpa

renthe

ses[18

58]

a

The

Greek

keywords

inpa

renthe

sesde

rivefrom

Dorothe

usseePingree

1976

367

21--23(quo

tedin

fullbe

low)

b

Thisis

thefin

alsectionin

Pingree

1976

361

--367

Obb

inkrig

htly

omits

itas

irrelevan

tto

Anu

bio

c

Mostof

this

long

chap

teris

lost

inthelacuna

before

55

only

thefin

alsectionis

preserved

SeeKroll

Skutsch

d

andZiegler19

682

58appcrit

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

e

T830

5--307

isan

adde

ndum

(after

theconc

luding

remarks

onsextile

aspe

cts)

ontheop

positio

nof

theluminaries

f

Itequa

lsFirm

icusM

ath618

but

ismissing

inDorA

rab

216Thu

sthescrib

ewas

follo

wingDorothe

ushe

re

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

153on

F9

g

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

h

Table1

136 Aestimatio

be eliminated from the list of fragments of Anubio This crucial pointwill be substantiated with detailed argument in Appendix 2 [p 173]

Altogether then it is clear that this paraphrase despite its ini-tial attribution to Anubio is almost entirely derived from DorotheusIt seems most plausible to assume the following relationships betweenthe authors in question

Common Source

Firmicus

Pseudo-Manetho

Par ltDorgt Par Anub ltet Dorgt

AnubioDorotheus

Can the lsquoCommon Sourcersquo be identified Firmicus provides two cluesfor an answer After his quotation from the chapters on κεντροθεσίαι

and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις he assures Mavortius that he left out ab-solutely nothing of what lsquothe divine men of oldrsquo had put forth

haec tibi sunt omnia Mavorti decus nostrum specialiter inti-mata nec a nobis aliquid est praetermissum quod diviniveteres et istius interpretes disciplinae prudentis sollertiae etdocti sermonis studio protulerunt [Firmicus Math 571]These matters have now all been explained to you in detailmy dear Mavortius and nothing has been left out by meof what the divine men of old and the expounders of thisdiscipline produced in their eagerness for prognostic expertiseand learned discourse [my trans with borrowings from Bram1975 180]

He is probably referring to Nechepso and Petosiris the major author-ities of Hellenistic astrology28 The second clue is from the presence

See also Firmicus Math 5prooem 6 animus [scil noster ] divina inspira-28

tione formatus totum conatus est quod didicerat explicare ut quidquid diviniveteres ex Aegyptiis adytis protulerunt ad Tarpeiae rupis templa perferretBoll [1909 2371] interprets this as lsquoeinen deutlichen Hinweis auf die AumlgypterdhNechepso-Petosirisrsquo See also Math 851 divini illi viri et sanctissimaereligionis antistites Petosiris et Nechepso

STEPHAN HEILEN 137

of that large collection of more than 100 typical charts preservedin Firmicus Math 629--31 The only prose collection of such exam-ples from the time before Valens that we know of are the (now lost)παραδειγματικαὶ γενέσεις of lsquothe Egyptian authorsrsquo that Ptolemymentions in Tetr 1211829 Ptolemy probably means Nechepso andPetosiris Both clues hint then at the same source30 Even if cer-tainty is impossible it is very likely that all three poets AnubioDorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified extensive prose sectionsfrom the famous authoritative manual of Nechepso and Petosirisand that Firmicus translated them in books 5 and 631 That wouldalso explain why almost nothing of that lsquobible of astrologyrsquo32 is pre-served in the original

If Obbink and earlier scholars starting with Riess33 are rightwith their dating of Anubio to the reign of Nero which is the timeof Dorotheus both poets may have versified their common sourcemore or less contemporaneously independently from each other ina period when astrology was especially en vogue so much so that itgave rise both to versifications by poets wishing to satisfy the highdemand of practitioners for summaries that could easily be learnedby heart and to such derisory texts by critics as the epigram of the

Ptolemy mentions these exemplary horoscopes in the context of the Egyptian29

system of terms In Firmicusrsquo Latin adaptation references to the astrologicalterms are admittedly rare see eg Math 6302 in finibus Mercurii and6306 in finibus VenerisNote that Firmicus moves on from Math 571 where he mentions the divini30

veteres to the immediately following sixth book without indicating a changeof sourceAlready Boll [1909 2371] thought that the ultimate source of Math 63--31

27 on aspects was the manual of Nechepso and Petosiris and still earlierKroll [1906 62] had expressed his opinion that Valensrsquo long chapter on as-pects [Anthol 217] went back to Nechepso and Petosiris ad Nechepsonemet Petosiridem haec redire haud dissimile est veri To my knowledge how-ever no comprehensive view of Firmicus and the three astrological poetslike the one proposed here has been put forth so far Note that besidesValens Anthol 217 there is another prose treatise on aspects in papyrusPSI 158 [see Boll 1914 5--10] whose internal order is like that of Anthol217 confused and it is unclear which relationship they have to the textsthat are included in the stemma aboveBoll 1908 106 = Boll 1950 4 (die Astrologenbibel)32

See Riess 1894 col 2322 and Riess 1895 186n133

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 3: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 129

1Anubiorsquos place in the history of Greco-Roman astrology

First however I will offer a general survey in order to give the readeran idea of the philological methods that made this collection of morethan 20 fragments possible despite the fact that only three of thembear explicit attributions to Anubio [F2 F7 F9]11 This survey willlead to new insights concerning both the sources and the receptionof Anubio

It was WKroll who observed around 1900 while working withO Skutsch on the second volume of their edition of the Mathesis ofFirmicus Maternus12 that two Greek prose paraphrases one explic-itly derived from Anubio one without attribution both matched thecontent of Math 63--27 so closely as to leave no doubt that all threetexts went back to a common source which Kroll identified with Anu-bio13 Soon after (this was overlooked by many including Obbink) JHeeg [1910a] argued convincingly that the paraphrase without attri-bution does not go back to Anubio but to Dorotheus of Sidon authorof a lost astrological poem in dactylic hexameters of which scatteredGreek fragments and a complete (rather free) translation in Arabicare preserved14 Since these paraphrases will be mentioned frequentlyin the following I shall avoid confusion by calling them consistentlylsquoParAnubrsquo and lsquoParltDorgtrsquo15

An important new step towards the edition that is here underreview was the publication in 1950 of the astrological papyrus P Schu-bart 15 (PBerol inv 9587) since this publication led to SWein-stockrsquos discovery [1952 211] that its elegiacs distichs lsquoare almostverbally translated by Firmicus Maternus 6 31 78--85rsquo Chapters629--31 of Firmicusrsquo Mathesis contain a large collection of examples

On F13 see p 15711

Vol 1 (1897) and vol 2 (1913) repr with addenda by K Ziegler [see Kroll12

Skutsch and Ziegler 1968]See Krollrsquos analysis in 1900 159--16013

See Heeg 1910a Kroll acknowledged the correctness of Heegrsquos argumenta-14

tion in 1913 [see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968 271] Dorotheus wasedited by Pingree [1976]For full references to the available editions of these texts see the bibliography15

below As will be shown in the following ParAnub ismdashdespite its explicitattribution to Anubiomdashmostly derived from Dorotheus Its short title willtherefore be expanded later to lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

130 Aestimatio

more precisely they contain typical alignments which were probablyderived at least partially from the analysis of the charts of historicalindividuals and serve to illustrate and deepen the theoretical instruc-tion concerning the effects of astrological aspects in the previouschapters 63--27 Since Math 63--27 has a complete Greek equivalent in ParAnub and 629--31 has a partial Greek equivalent in the elegiac distichs of PSchubart 15 and Anubio is the only known astrological poet to have written in ele-giac distichs16

it is reasonable to infer that all of Math 63--31 goes back to AnubioThis assumption was further substantiated by Obbinkrsquos discoverythat the new elegiac fragments F3--F5 from Oxyrhynchus almost ver-bally correspond to sections in Math 629--3117 thereby forming agroup with P Schubart 15 [= F6]

This brilliant philological reconstruction done by several gener-ations of scholars leaves no reasonable doubt that all Greek astrolog-ical texts in elegiac distichs that correspond with passages in Math63--31 derive from the lost poem of Anubio Other astrological textsin elegiac distichs which have no equivalent in Math 63--31 are verylikely to be of Anubio too Yet these cases are not certain and needtherefore to be listed as fragmenta incerta This is the basic con-vincing rationale that underlies Obbinkrsquos selection and arrangementof the fragments In some cases however Obbink did not apply hisown criteria rigorously enough or there are special circumstances thatneed to be taken into consideration These cases which will be dis-cussed below suggest a partial rearrangement of both the testimoniaand the fragments

Before we embark upon the discussion of single testimonia andfragments one question of fundamental importance remains to beaddressed What is the actual source that Firmicus drew on in Math63--31 Is it

Authors from late antiquity such as Hephaestio as well as authors from the16

Byzantine period speak of Anubio in a way that shows that he was the onlyelegiac astrological poet whom they knew ofF3 = 62923--305 F4 = 6306--7 F5 = 63020--2217

STEPHAN HEILEN 131

(a) Anubiorsquos original poem or(b) the preserved paraphrase ParAnub or(c) the poem of Dorotheus of Sidon18

While all scholars so far either take one of these various possibili-ties or hesitate between (a) and (b) I do not find their argumentscompelling I wish to propose instead a hitherto unexplored alter-native namely that all these authors (Anubio Dorotheus Firmicusand also pseudo-Manetho) drew independently from each other ona common source one that was authoritative enough to influencenumerous successors I will now outline briefly the main argumentsfor this view

Firmicus never mentions the poet Anubio by name19 and thereis no evidence that he knew the elegiac poem at all As Obbink andothers have rightly observed Firmicus treats his astrological topicsin much more detail than the preserved corresponding passages ofAnubiorsquos poem do This is usually explained as the result of textualexpansions and changes either by Firmicus himself or by the authorof ParAnub (if Firmicus drew on that) or by both of them20 Buta close inspection of the material gives rise to serious doubts Forexample F4 b 7--9 says exactly the opposite of Math 630621

Let us take a closer look at F3 The whole hexameter F3 ii 4 hasno equivalent in the corresponding passageMath 62923 whileMath6301 et Sol sit in MC Luna et horoscopo in Cancro constitutis hasno counterpart in F3 ii 15--16 The immediately preceding conditionregarding Mars is less clearly defined in Anubio [F3 ii 14] than inFirmicus and the following condition regarding Saturnrsquos aspect tothe Moon bears in each of the two texts a specification that cannotbe found in the other one (μοῦνος pariter) Interestingly both theseconditions are fulfilled perfectly in the chart of Oedipus which formsthe last part of Math 6301 so as to suggest that both Anubio andFirmicus drew in a selective manner on a common prose source which

This is the view of Heeg [1910a] and Stegemann [1943]18

I agree on this with Boll [1909 2371] On T3 which must be rejected as a19

testimonium see p 140Math 6302 for example has no counterpart in Anub F3 The preceding20

paragraph [Math 6301] can be paralleled with F3 ii 10--18 and the followingparagraph [Math 6303] with F3 ii 19--24See Obbink 1999 80 for an attempt to explain this21

132 Aestimatio

already contained that horoscope as an example Note that these ide-alized horoscopes at 6301 (Oedipus) 63011--12 (Paris) 63022--26(Demosthenes Homer Plato Pindar Archilochus Archimedes) and63137 (Thersites) were absent from Anubiorsquos poem as F3 ii 10--18[~Math 6301] and F5 b [~Math 63022] show where Firmicusrsquo finalremarks that these were the horoscopes of Oedipus and Demosthenesrespectively are missing Moreover it is very unlikely that Firmicushimself made them up (except maybe that of Archimedes the mostrecent historical individual and the only one from Sicily Firmicusrsquohomeland) These ideal horoscopes look quite archaic in their sim-plicity and it is noteworthy that the core of the Corpus Manethoni-anum ie pseudo-Manetho 23622 which can be dated to the earlysecond century thanks to the authorrsquos autobiographical horoscope[pseudo-Manetho 6[3]738--750]23 also contains in the same book thehoroscope of Oedipus [pseudo-Manetho 6[3]160--169] If one exam-ines the details one finds that both authors pseudo-Manetho aswell as Firmicus seem to have derived this horoscope from a com-mon source independently from each other24 This strongly indicatesthat Firmicusrsquo ideal horoscopes in 630--31 are from the first centuryAD or even earlier In order to conclude this part of the argumentwith regard to Anubio it is important to keep in mind that Firmicusseems to have drawn not on Anubio nor on paraphrases derived fromAnubio but on the same source as Anubio Whoever prefers to stick

These are books 1 2 and 3 in the restored order in Koechly 185822

The alignment can be dated to AD 80 May 272823

This is all the more obvious because also the context in both texts reveals24

striking parallels which however cannot be explained on the hypothesisthat Firmicus used pseudo-Manetho Compare for example the followingpassages that precede the horoscope of Oedipus in both texts

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

6[3]151--153 629206[3]154--159 629226[3]180--184 62924

and so forth It would go beyond the scope of this article to compare bothbooks systematically but there is no doubt that pseudo-Manetho and Fir-micus drew their examples from the same source

STEPHAN HEILEN 133

to the commonly accepted view that Firmicus drew his material inbook 6 from Anubio must then resort to the unlikely hypothesis that Firmicus regularly checkedAnubio against Anubiorsquos source (the lsquocommon sourcersquo) becauseotherwise Firmicus would not have found the references to OedipusDemosthenes and others and deny the validity of the arguments that will be adduced later withregard to ParAnub [p 134]It is now time to take a closer look at Dorotheus As has long

been observed the Arabic translation of Dorotheus (hereafter DorArab) contains a long section [214--33] that corresponds so obvi-ously with ParAnub() as to make Pingree [1976 344--367] includeParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorotheus Pingree[1976 344] assumed that Anubio used Dorotheus and that the text ofAnubio was then translated into Latin by Firmicus But why shoulda poet find it attractive to rephrase in a closely related meter (ele-giac distichs) astrological material that had already been versified indactylic hexameters by Dorotheus An additional more compellingargument against Pingreersquos view is the following as the new frag-ments F3 F4 F5 combined with P Schubart 15 [F6] show Anubiodid the same as Firmicus namely after his exposition of generalrules concerning the effects of the aspects [= Math 63--27] he con-tinued with the presentation of specific examples [= Math 629--31]25Since these examples were (as the Arabic version shows) completelyabsent from Dorotheusrsquo poem Anubio cannot have drawn this ma-terial from Dorotheus And since the general rules and the specific

Compare Firmicusrsquo explicit remarks in the transitional chapter 628 which25

begins thus[6281] completis his omnibus [ie 63--27] antequam sermo nos-ter ad horoscoporum transferatur exempla [ie 629--31] illud pru-dentiam tuam breviter admonemus etc

and ends thus [6282]ut quicquid generali explicatione monstravimus [ie 63--27] specia-liter rursus iunctis sententiis explicemus

[6281] Now that we have finished all these discussions and beforeour work turns to the examples concerning the ascendant we mustbriefly call to your attention that [6282] so that whatever wehave described in general we shall show again in detail

134 Aestimatio

examples form a unit whose two parts logically follow upon eachother it is reasonable to assume that already in Anubiorsquos and Fir-micusrsquo common source they formed a unit Dorotheus arranged thematerial differently After the exposition of general rules for aspectshe decided to fill the remaining part of his second book with othermaterial from the common source namely the effects of the planetsin the centers [221--27] and in each otherrsquos houses and terms [228--33] this is material that Firmicus had already treated earlier in hisfifth book and Anubio must also have treated it as F22 shows26Table 1 illustrates the correspondences including also the core poemof the Corpus Manethonianum ie pseudo-Manetho 236 [123]The table is based on the order of the material in Firmicus whichmust have been that of the common source because it logically pro-ceeds from the isolated effects of single planets in certain places tothe combined effects of two or more planets aspecting each otherWhile Pingree wrongly thought that Anubio used Dorotheus hewisely included ParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorothe-us (this is the last important clarification to make here) For despitethe explicit attribution to Anubio in the heading of the first chapterthe anonymous excerptor obviously also had at his disposal a copyof Dorotheus whose name he mentions twice explicitly27 Analysisof this paraphrase shows that the scribe very soon after the startswitched from Anubio to Dorotheus and one gets the impressionthat he kept following Dorotheus until the end Note however thatthe manuscript attribution of this paraphrasersquos chapters on aspectsto Anubio is not just a scribal mistake or guesswork of a later copyistin the same manuscript the immediately preceding chapter containsliteral quotations of elegiac distichs from Anubio [= F8] Appar-ently the scribe really started the paraphrase [T8] from Anubio andswitched then to Dorotheus

This insight is important because it makes Table 1 more easilyunderstandable and has the consequence that not only F10 (fromParltDorgt) but also F9 (from ParAnub [= T8] which will in thefollowing be more appropriately called ParAnubltet Dorgt) must

On F22 see p 16926

T8342 φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Δωρόθεος κτλ = Pingree 1976 3556 andmdashbeyond the27

section that Obbink included in his editionmdash36119--20 φησὶ γὰρ καὶ Δωρό-

θεος κτλ

STEPHAN HEILEN 135

DorA

rab

ParA

nub

Anu

bio

pseu

do-M

anetho

aFirm

icusM

ath

Subjectb

220

--27

()c

F223--4

3[2]8

--226

Lost

inthela-

cuna

before

55

The

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquointhe

four

centers(κ

εντροθεσία

ι)

228

- -33

T841

1--54

F226--7

F2214

--15

F2211

--12

2[1]1

41--3

9655--6

dThe

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquoin

each

othe

rrsquosho

uses

and

term

s(τ

οπικ

αὶδια

κρίσ

εις)

Effe

ctsof

214

215

216

217

218

--19

T81--75

T876

--207

T820

8--302

+30

5--307

f

T830

2--304

T830

8--410

(F10

2)e

mdashmdash

(F9)g

F105h

mdashmdash

(F10

1)

hF1

4

3 [2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

mdashmdash

2[1]3

97--4

85

63--8

69--14

615

--20

621

622

--27

trineaspe

cts

squa

reaspe

cts

oppo

sitio

nssextile

aspe

cts

conjun

ctions

mdashmdash

mdashmdash

F3--F

66[3]

629

--31

Typ

ical

charts

Boo

knu

mbe

rsaregivenaccordingto

themss

trad

ition

followed

byKoechlyrsquosrestored

orde

rinpa

renthe

ses[18

58]

a

The

Greek

keywords

inpa

renthe

sesde

rivefrom

Dorothe

usseePingree

1976

367

21--23(quo

tedin

fullbe

low)

b

Thisis

thefin

alsectionin

Pingree

1976

361

--367

Obb

inkrig

htly

omits

itas

irrelevan

tto

Anu

bio

c

Mostof

this

long

chap

teris

lost

inthelacuna

before

55

only

thefin

alsectionis

preserved

SeeKroll

Skutsch

d

andZiegler19

682

58appcrit

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

e

T830

5--307

isan

adde

ndum

(after

theconc

luding

remarks

onsextile

aspe

cts)

ontheop

positio

nof

theluminaries

f

Itequa

lsFirm

icusM

ath618

but

ismissing

inDorA

rab

216Thu

sthescrib

ewas

follo

wingDorothe

ushe

re

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

153on

F9

g

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

h

Table1

136 Aestimatio

be eliminated from the list of fragments of Anubio This crucial pointwill be substantiated with detailed argument in Appendix 2 [p 173]

Altogether then it is clear that this paraphrase despite its ini-tial attribution to Anubio is almost entirely derived from DorotheusIt seems most plausible to assume the following relationships betweenthe authors in question

Common Source

Firmicus

Pseudo-Manetho

Par ltDorgt Par Anub ltet Dorgt

AnubioDorotheus

Can the lsquoCommon Sourcersquo be identified Firmicus provides two cluesfor an answer After his quotation from the chapters on κεντροθεσίαι

and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις he assures Mavortius that he left out ab-solutely nothing of what lsquothe divine men of oldrsquo had put forth

haec tibi sunt omnia Mavorti decus nostrum specialiter inti-mata nec a nobis aliquid est praetermissum quod diviniveteres et istius interpretes disciplinae prudentis sollertiae etdocti sermonis studio protulerunt [Firmicus Math 571]These matters have now all been explained to you in detailmy dear Mavortius and nothing has been left out by meof what the divine men of old and the expounders of thisdiscipline produced in their eagerness for prognostic expertiseand learned discourse [my trans with borrowings from Bram1975 180]

He is probably referring to Nechepso and Petosiris the major author-ities of Hellenistic astrology28 The second clue is from the presence

See also Firmicus Math 5prooem 6 animus [scil noster ] divina inspira-28

tione formatus totum conatus est quod didicerat explicare ut quidquid diviniveteres ex Aegyptiis adytis protulerunt ad Tarpeiae rupis templa perferretBoll [1909 2371] interprets this as lsquoeinen deutlichen Hinweis auf die AumlgypterdhNechepso-Petosirisrsquo See also Math 851 divini illi viri et sanctissimaereligionis antistites Petosiris et Nechepso

STEPHAN HEILEN 137

of that large collection of more than 100 typical charts preservedin Firmicus Math 629--31 The only prose collection of such exam-ples from the time before Valens that we know of are the (now lost)παραδειγματικαὶ γενέσεις of lsquothe Egyptian authorsrsquo that Ptolemymentions in Tetr 1211829 Ptolemy probably means Nechepso andPetosiris Both clues hint then at the same source30 Even if cer-tainty is impossible it is very likely that all three poets AnubioDorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified extensive prose sectionsfrom the famous authoritative manual of Nechepso and Petosirisand that Firmicus translated them in books 5 and 631 That wouldalso explain why almost nothing of that lsquobible of astrologyrsquo32 is pre-served in the original

If Obbink and earlier scholars starting with Riess33 are rightwith their dating of Anubio to the reign of Nero which is the timeof Dorotheus both poets may have versified their common sourcemore or less contemporaneously independently from each other ina period when astrology was especially en vogue so much so that itgave rise both to versifications by poets wishing to satisfy the highdemand of practitioners for summaries that could easily be learnedby heart and to such derisory texts by critics as the epigram of the

Ptolemy mentions these exemplary horoscopes in the context of the Egyptian29

system of terms In Firmicusrsquo Latin adaptation references to the astrologicalterms are admittedly rare see eg Math 6302 in finibus Mercurii and6306 in finibus VenerisNote that Firmicus moves on from Math 571 where he mentions the divini30

veteres to the immediately following sixth book without indicating a changeof sourceAlready Boll [1909 2371] thought that the ultimate source of Math 63--31

27 on aspects was the manual of Nechepso and Petosiris and still earlierKroll [1906 62] had expressed his opinion that Valensrsquo long chapter on as-pects [Anthol 217] went back to Nechepso and Petosiris ad Nechepsonemet Petosiridem haec redire haud dissimile est veri To my knowledge how-ever no comprehensive view of Firmicus and the three astrological poetslike the one proposed here has been put forth so far Note that besidesValens Anthol 217 there is another prose treatise on aspects in papyrusPSI 158 [see Boll 1914 5--10] whose internal order is like that of Anthol217 confused and it is unclear which relationship they have to the textsthat are included in the stemma aboveBoll 1908 106 = Boll 1950 4 (die Astrologenbibel)32

See Riess 1894 col 2322 and Riess 1895 186n133

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 4: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

130 Aestimatio

more precisely they contain typical alignments which were probablyderived at least partially from the analysis of the charts of historicalindividuals and serve to illustrate and deepen the theoretical instruc-tion concerning the effects of astrological aspects in the previouschapters 63--27 Since Math 63--27 has a complete Greek equivalent in ParAnub and 629--31 has a partial Greek equivalent in the elegiac distichs of PSchubart 15 and Anubio is the only known astrological poet to have written in ele-giac distichs16

it is reasonable to infer that all of Math 63--31 goes back to AnubioThis assumption was further substantiated by Obbinkrsquos discoverythat the new elegiac fragments F3--F5 from Oxyrhynchus almost ver-bally correspond to sections in Math 629--3117 thereby forming agroup with P Schubart 15 [= F6]

This brilliant philological reconstruction done by several gener-ations of scholars leaves no reasonable doubt that all Greek astrolog-ical texts in elegiac distichs that correspond with passages in Math63--31 derive from the lost poem of Anubio Other astrological textsin elegiac distichs which have no equivalent in Math 63--31 are verylikely to be of Anubio too Yet these cases are not certain and needtherefore to be listed as fragmenta incerta This is the basic con-vincing rationale that underlies Obbinkrsquos selection and arrangementof the fragments In some cases however Obbink did not apply hisown criteria rigorously enough or there are special circumstances thatneed to be taken into consideration These cases which will be dis-cussed below suggest a partial rearrangement of both the testimoniaand the fragments

Before we embark upon the discussion of single testimonia andfragments one question of fundamental importance remains to beaddressed What is the actual source that Firmicus drew on in Math63--31 Is it

Authors from late antiquity such as Hephaestio as well as authors from the16

Byzantine period speak of Anubio in a way that shows that he was the onlyelegiac astrological poet whom they knew ofF3 = 62923--305 F4 = 6306--7 F5 = 63020--2217

STEPHAN HEILEN 131

(a) Anubiorsquos original poem or(b) the preserved paraphrase ParAnub or(c) the poem of Dorotheus of Sidon18

While all scholars so far either take one of these various possibili-ties or hesitate between (a) and (b) I do not find their argumentscompelling I wish to propose instead a hitherto unexplored alter-native namely that all these authors (Anubio Dorotheus Firmicusand also pseudo-Manetho) drew independently from each other ona common source one that was authoritative enough to influencenumerous successors I will now outline briefly the main argumentsfor this view

Firmicus never mentions the poet Anubio by name19 and thereis no evidence that he knew the elegiac poem at all As Obbink andothers have rightly observed Firmicus treats his astrological topicsin much more detail than the preserved corresponding passages ofAnubiorsquos poem do This is usually explained as the result of textualexpansions and changes either by Firmicus himself or by the authorof ParAnub (if Firmicus drew on that) or by both of them20 Buta close inspection of the material gives rise to serious doubts Forexample F4 b 7--9 says exactly the opposite of Math 630621

Let us take a closer look at F3 The whole hexameter F3 ii 4 hasno equivalent in the corresponding passageMath 62923 whileMath6301 et Sol sit in MC Luna et horoscopo in Cancro constitutis hasno counterpart in F3 ii 15--16 The immediately preceding conditionregarding Mars is less clearly defined in Anubio [F3 ii 14] than inFirmicus and the following condition regarding Saturnrsquos aspect tothe Moon bears in each of the two texts a specification that cannotbe found in the other one (μοῦνος pariter) Interestingly both theseconditions are fulfilled perfectly in the chart of Oedipus which formsthe last part of Math 6301 so as to suggest that both Anubio andFirmicus drew in a selective manner on a common prose source which

This is the view of Heeg [1910a] and Stegemann [1943]18

I agree on this with Boll [1909 2371] On T3 which must be rejected as a19

testimonium see p 140Math 6302 for example has no counterpart in Anub F3 The preceding20

paragraph [Math 6301] can be paralleled with F3 ii 10--18 and the followingparagraph [Math 6303] with F3 ii 19--24See Obbink 1999 80 for an attempt to explain this21

132 Aestimatio

already contained that horoscope as an example Note that these ide-alized horoscopes at 6301 (Oedipus) 63011--12 (Paris) 63022--26(Demosthenes Homer Plato Pindar Archilochus Archimedes) and63137 (Thersites) were absent from Anubiorsquos poem as F3 ii 10--18[~Math 6301] and F5 b [~Math 63022] show where Firmicusrsquo finalremarks that these were the horoscopes of Oedipus and Demosthenesrespectively are missing Moreover it is very unlikely that Firmicushimself made them up (except maybe that of Archimedes the mostrecent historical individual and the only one from Sicily Firmicusrsquohomeland) These ideal horoscopes look quite archaic in their sim-plicity and it is noteworthy that the core of the Corpus Manethoni-anum ie pseudo-Manetho 23622 which can be dated to the earlysecond century thanks to the authorrsquos autobiographical horoscope[pseudo-Manetho 6[3]738--750]23 also contains in the same book thehoroscope of Oedipus [pseudo-Manetho 6[3]160--169] If one exam-ines the details one finds that both authors pseudo-Manetho aswell as Firmicus seem to have derived this horoscope from a com-mon source independently from each other24 This strongly indicatesthat Firmicusrsquo ideal horoscopes in 630--31 are from the first centuryAD or even earlier In order to conclude this part of the argumentwith regard to Anubio it is important to keep in mind that Firmicusseems to have drawn not on Anubio nor on paraphrases derived fromAnubio but on the same source as Anubio Whoever prefers to stick

These are books 1 2 and 3 in the restored order in Koechly 185822

The alignment can be dated to AD 80 May 272823

This is all the more obvious because also the context in both texts reveals24

striking parallels which however cannot be explained on the hypothesisthat Firmicus used pseudo-Manetho Compare for example the followingpassages that precede the horoscope of Oedipus in both texts

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

6[3]151--153 629206[3]154--159 629226[3]180--184 62924

and so forth It would go beyond the scope of this article to compare bothbooks systematically but there is no doubt that pseudo-Manetho and Fir-micus drew their examples from the same source

STEPHAN HEILEN 133

to the commonly accepted view that Firmicus drew his material inbook 6 from Anubio must then resort to the unlikely hypothesis that Firmicus regularly checkedAnubio against Anubiorsquos source (the lsquocommon sourcersquo) becauseotherwise Firmicus would not have found the references to OedipusDemosthenes and others and deny the validity of the arguments that will be adduced later withregard to ParAnub [p 134]It is now time to take a closer look at Dorotheus As has long

been observed the Arabic translation of Dorotheus (hereafter DorArab) contains a long section [214--33] that corresponds so obvi-ously with ParAnub() as to make Pingree [1976 344--367] includeParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorotheus Pingree[1976 344] assumed that Anubio used Dorotheus and that the text ofAnubio was then translated into Latin by Firmicus But why shoulda poet find it attractive to rephrase in a closely related meter (ele-giac distichs) astrological material that had already been versified indactylic hexameters by Dorotheus An additional more compellingargument against Pingreersquos view is the following as the new frag-ments F3 F4 F5 combined with P Schubart 15 [F6] show Anubiodid the same as Firmicus namely after his exposition of generalrules concerning the effects of the aspects [= Math 63--27] he con-tinued with the presentation of specific examples [= Math 629--31]25Since these examples were (as the Arabic version shows) completelyabsent from Dorotheusrsquo poem Anubio cannot have drawn this ma-terial from Dorotheus And since the general rules and the specific

Compare Firmicusrsquo explicit remarks in the transitional chapter 628 which25

begins thus[6281] completis his omnibus [ie 63--27] antequam sermo nos-ter ad horoscoporum transferatur exempla [ie 629--31] illud pru-dentiam tuam breviter admonemus etc

and ends thus [6282]ut quicquid generali explicatione monstravimus [ie 63--27] specia-liter rursus iunctis sententiis explicemus

[6281] Now that we have finished all these discussions and beforeour work turns to the examples concerning the ascendant we mustbriefly call to your attention that [6282] so that whatever wehave described in general we shall show again in detail

134 Aestimatio

examples form a unit whose two parts logically follow upon eachother it is reasonable to assume that already in Anubiorsquos and Fir-micusrsquo common source they formed a unit Dorotheus arranged thematerial differently After the exposition of general rules for aspectshe decided to fill the remaining part of his second book with othermaterial from the common source namely the effects of the planetsin the centers [221--27] and in each otherrsquos houses and terms [228--33] this is material that Firmicus had already treated earlier in hisfifth book and Anubio must also have treated it as F22 shows26Table 1 illustrates the correspondences including also the core poemof the Corpus Manethonianum ie pseudo-Manetho 236 [123]The table is based on the order of the material in Firmicus whichmust have been that of the common source because it logically pro-ceeds from the isolated effects of single planets in certain places tothe combined effects of two or more planets aspecting each otherWhile Pingree wrongly thought that Anubio used Dorotheus hewisely included ParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorothe-us (this is the last important clarification to make here) For despitethe explicit attribution to Anubio in the heading of the first chapterthe anonymous excerptor obviously also had at his disposal a copyof Dorotheus whose name he mentions twice explicitly27 Analysisof this paraphrase shows that the scribe very soon after the startswitched from Anubio to Dorotheus and one gets the impressionthat he kept following Dorotheus until the end Note however thatthe manuscript attribution of this paraphrasersquos chapters on aspectsto Anubio is not just a scribal mistake or guesswork of a later copyistin the same manuscript the immediately preceding chapter containsliteral quotations of elegiac distichs from Anubio [= F8] Appar-ently the scribe really started the paraphrase [T8] from Anubio andswitched then to Dorotheus

This insight is important because it makes Table 1 more easilyunderstandable and has the consequence that not only F10 (fromParltDorgt) but also F9 (from ParAnub [= T8] which will in thefollowing be more appropriately called ParAnubltet Dorgt) must

On F22 see p 16926

T8342 φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Δωρόθεος κτλ = Pingree 1976 3556 andmdashbeyond the27

section that Obbink included in his editionmdash36119--20 φησὶ γὰρ καὶ Δωρό-

θεος κτλ

STEPHAN HEILEN 135

DorA

rab

ParA

nub

Anu

bio

pseu

do-M

anetho

aFirm

icusM

ath

Subjectb

220

--27

()c

F223--4

3[2]8

--226

Lost

inthela-

cuna

before

55

The

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquointhe

four

centers(κ

εντροθεσία

ι)

228

- -33

T841

1--54

F226--7

F2214

--15

F2211

--12

2[1]1

41--3

9655--6

dThe

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquoin

each

othe

rrsquosho

uses

and

term

s(τ

οπικ

αὶδια

κρίσ

εις)

Effe

ctsof

214

215

216

217

218

--19

T81--75

T876

--207

T820

8--302

+30

5--307

f

T830

2--304

T830

8--410

(F10

2)e

mdashmdash

(F9)g

F105h

mdashmdash

(F10

1)

hF1

4

3 [2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

mdashmdash

2[1]3

97--4

85

63--8

69--14

615

--20

621

622

--27

trineaspe

cts

squa

reaspe

cts

oppo

sitio

nssextile

aspe

cts

conjun

ctions

mdashmdash

mdashmdash

F3--F

66[3]

629

--31

Typ

ical

charts

Boo

knu

mbe

rsaregivenaccordingto

themss

trad

ition

followed

byKoechlyrsquosrestored

orde

rinpa

renthe

ses[18

58]

a

The

Greek

keywords

inpa

renthe

sesde

rivefrom

Dorothe

usseePingree

1976

367

21--23(quo

tedin

fullbe

low)

b

Thisis

thefin

alsectionin

Pingree

1976

361

--367

Obb

inkrig

htly

omits

itas

irrelevan

tto

Anu

bio

c

Mostof

this

long

chap

teris

lost

inthelacuna

before

55

only

thefin

alsectionis

preserved

SeeKroll

Skutsch

d

andZiegler19

682

58appcrit

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

e

T830

5--307

isan

adde

ndum

(after

theconc

luding

remarks

onsextile

aspe

cts)

ontheop

positio

nof

theluminaries

f

Itequa

lsFirm

icusM

ath618

but

ismissing

inDorA

rab

216Thu

sthescrib

ewas

follo

wingDorothe

ushe

re

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

153on

F9

g

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

h

Table1

136 Aestimatio

be eliminated from the list of fragments of Anubio This crucial pointwill be substantiated with detailed argument in Appendix 2 [p 173]

Altogether then it is clear that this paraphrase despite its ini-tial attribution to Anubio is almost entirely derived from DorotheusIt seems most plausible to assume the following relationships betweenthe authors in question

Common Source

Firmicus

Pseudo-Manetho

Par ltDorgt Par Anub ltet Dorgt

AnubioDorotheus

Can the lsquoCommon Sourcersquo be identified Firmicus provides two cluesfor an answer After his quotation from the chapters on κεντροθεσίαι

and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις he assures Mavortius that he left out ab-solutely nothing of what lsquothe divine men of oldrsquo had put forth

haec tibi sunt omnia Mavorti decus nostrum specialiter inti-mata nec a nobis aliquid est praetermissum quod diviniveteres et istius interpretes disciplinae prudentis sollertiae etdocti sermonis studio protulerunt [Firmicus Math 571]These matters have now all been explained to you in detailmy dear Mavortius and nothing has been left out by meof what the divine men of old and the expounders of thisdiscipline produced in their eagerness for prognostic expertiseand learned discourse [my trans with borrowings from Bram1975 180]

He is probably referring to Nechepso and Petosiris the major author-ities of Hellenistic astrology28 The second clue is from the presence

See also Firmicus Math 5prooem 6 animus [scil noster ] divina inspira-28

tione formatus totum conatus est quod didicerat explicare ut quidquid diviniveteres ex Aegyptiis adytis protulerunt ad Tarpeiae rupis templa perferretBoll [1909 2371] interprets this as lsquoeinen deutlichen Hinweis auf die AumlgypterdhNechepso-Petosirisrsquo See also Math 851 divini illi viri et sanctissimaereligionis antistites Petosiris et Nechepso

STEPHAN HEILEN 137

of that large collection of more than 100 typical charts preservedin Firmicus Math 629--31 The only prose collection of such exam-ples from the time before Valens that we know of are the (now lost)παραδειγματικαὶ γενέσεις of lsquothe Egyptian authorsrsquo that Ptolemymentions in Tetr 1211829 Ptolemy probably means Nechepso andPetosiris Both clues hint then at the same source30 Even if cer-tainty is impossible it is very likely that all three poets AnubioDorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified extensive prose sectionsfrom the famous authoritative manual of Nechepso and Petosirisand that Firmicus translated them in books 5 and 631 That wouldalso explain why almost nothing of that lsquobible of astrologyrsquo32 is pre-served in the original

If Obbink and earlier scholars starting with Riess33 are rightwith their dating of Anubio to the reign of Nero which is the timeof Dorotheus both poets may have versified their common sourcemore or less contemporaneously independently from each other ina period when astrology was especially en vogue so much so that itgave rise both to versifications by poets wishing to satisfy the highdemand of practitioners for summaries that could easily be learnedby heart and to such derisory texts by critics as the epigram of the

Ptolemy mentions these exemplary horoscopes in the context of the Egyptian29

system of terms In Firmicusrsquo Latin adaptation references to the astrologicalterms are admittedly rare see eg Math 6302 in finibus Mercurii and6306 in finibus VenerisNote that Firmicus moves on from Math 571 where he mentions the divini30

veteres to the immediately following sixth book without indicating a changeof sourceAlready Boll [1909 2371] thought that the ultimate source of Math 63--31

27 on aspects was the manual of Nechepso and Petosiris and still earlierKroll [1906 62] had expressed his opinion that Valensrsquo long chapter on as-pects [Anthol 217] went back to Nechepso and Petosiris ad Nechepsonemet Petosiridem haec redire haud dissimile est veri To my knowledge how-ever no comprehensive view of Firmicus and the three astrological poetslike the one proposed here has been put forth so far Note that besidesValens Anthol 217 there is another prose treatise on aspects in papyrusPSI 158 [see Boll 1914 5--10] whose internal order is like that of Anthol217 confused and it is unclear which relationship they have to the textsthat are included in the stemma aboveBoll 1908 106 = Boll 1950 4 (die Astrologenbibel)32

See Riess 1894 col 2322 and Riess 1895 186n133

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 5: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 131

(a) Anubiorsquos original poem or(b) the preserved paraphrase ParAnub or(c) the poem of Dorotheus of Sidon18

While all scholars so far either take one of these various possibili-ties or hesitate between (a) and (b) I do not find their argumentscompelling I wish to propose instead a hitherto unexplored alter-native namely that all these authors (Anubio Dorotheus Firmicusand also pseudo-Manetho) drew independently from each other ona common source one that was authoritative enough to influencenumerous successors I will now outline briefly the main argumentsfor this view

Firmicus never mentions the poet Anubio by name19 and thereis no evidence that he knew the elegiac poem at all As Obbink andothers have rightly observed Firmicus treats his astrological topicsin much more detail than the preserved corresponding passages ofAnubiorsquos poem do This is usually explained as the result of textualexpansions and changes either by Firmicus himself or by the authorof ParAnub (if Firmicus drew on that) or by both of them20 Buta close inspection of the material gives rise to serious doubts Forexample F4 b 7--9 says exactly the opposite of Math 630621

Let us take a closer look at F3 The whole hexameter F3 ii 4 hasno equivalent in the corresponding passageMath 62923 whileMath6301 et Sol sit in MC Luna et horoscopo in Cancro constitutis hasno counterpart in F3 ii 15--16 The immediately preceding conditionregarding Mars is less clearly defined in Anubio [F3 ii 14] than inFirmicus and the following condition regarding Saturnrsquos aspect tothe Moon bears in each of the two texts a specification that cannotbe found in the other one (μοῦνος pariter) Interestingly both theseconditions are fulfilled perfectly in the chart of Oedipus which formsthe last part of Math 6301 so as to suggest that both Anubio andFirmicus drew in a selective manner on a common prose source which

This is the view of Heeg [1910a] and Stegemann [1943]18

I agree on this with Boll [1909 2371] On T3 which must be rejected as a19

testimonium see p 140Math 6302 for example has no counterpart in Anub F3 The preceding20

paragraph [Math 6301] can be paralleled with F3 ii 10--18 and the followingparagraph [Math 6303] with F3 ii 19--24See Obbink 1999 80 for an attempt to explain this21

132 Aestimatio

already contained that horoscope as an example Note that these ide-alized horoscopes at 6301 (Oedipus) 63011--12 (Paris) 63022--26(Demosthenes Homer Plato Pindar Archilochus Archimedes) and63137 (Thersites) were absent from Anubiorsquos poem as F3 ii 10--18[~Math 6301] and F5 b [~Math 63022] show where Firmicusrsquo finalremarks that these were the horoscopes of Oedipus and Demosthenesrespectively are missing Moreover it is very unlikely that Firmicushimself made them up (except maybe that of Archimedes the mostrecent historical individual and the only one from Sicily Firmicusrsquohomeland) These ideal horoscopes look quite archaic in their sim-plicity and it is noteworthy that the core of the Corpus Manethoni-anum ie pseudo-Manetho 23622 which can be dated to the earlysecond century thanks to the authorrsquos autobiographical horoscope[pseudo-Manetho 6[3]738--750]23 also contains in the same book thehoroscope of Oedipus [pseudo-Manetho 6[3]160--169] If one exam-ines the details one finds that both authors pseudo-Manetho aswell as Firmicus seem to have derived this horoscope from a com-mon source independently from each other24 This strongly indicatesthat Firmicusrsquo ideal horoscopes in 630--31 are from the first centuryAD or even earlier In order to conclude this part of the argumentwith regard to Anubio it is important to keep in mind that Firmicusseems to have drawn not on Anubio nor on paraphrases derived fromAnubio but on the same source as Anubio Whoever prefers to stick

These are books 1 2 and 3 in the restored order in Koechly 185822

The alignment can be dated to AD 80 May 272823

This is all the more obvious because also the context in both texts reveals24

striking parallels which however cannot be explained on the hypothesisthat Firmicus used pseudo-Manetho Compare for example the followingpassages that precede the horoscope of Oedipus in both texts

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

6[3]151--153 629206[3]154--159 629226[3]180--184 62924

and so forth It would go beyond the scope of this article to compare bothbooks systematically but there is no doubt that pseudo-Manetho and Fir-micus drew their examples from the same source

STEPHAN HEILEN 133

to the commonly accepted view that Firmicus drew his material inbook 6 from Anubio must then resort to the unlikely hypothesis that Firmicus regularly checkedAnubio against Anubiorsquos source (the lsquocommon sourcersquo) becauseotherwise Firmicus would not have found the references to OedipusDemosthenes and others and deny the validity of the arguments that will be adduced later withregard to ParAnub [p 134]It is now time to take a closer look at Dorotheus As has long

been observed the Arabic translation of Dorotheus (hereafter DorArab) contains a long section [214--33] that corresponds so obvi-ously with ParAnub() as to make Pingree [1976 344--367] includeParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorotheus Pingree[1976 344] assumed that Anubio used Dorotheus and that the text ofAnubio was then translated into Latin by Firmicus But why shoulda poet find it attractive to rephrase in a closely related meter (ele-giac distichs) astrological material that had already been versified indactylic hexameters by Dorotheus An additional more compellingargument against Pingreersquos view is the following as the new frag-ments F3 F4 F5 combined with P Schubart 15 [F6] show Anubiodid the same as Firmicus namely after his exposition of generalrules concerning the effects of the aspects [= Math 63--27] he con-tinued with the presentation of specific examples [= Math 629--31]25Since these examples were (as the Arabic version shows) completelyabsent from Dorotheusrsquo poem Anubio cannot have drawn this ma-terial from Dorotheus And since the general rules and the specific

Compare Firmicusrsquo explicit remarks in the transitional chapter 628 which25

begins thus[6281] completis his omnibus [ie 63--27] antequam sermo nos-ter ad horoscoporum transferatur exempla [ie 629--31] illud pru-dentiam tuam breviter admonemus etc

and ends thus [6282]ut quicquid generali explicatione monstravimus [ie 63--27] specia-liter rursus iunctis sententiis explicemus

[6281] Now that we have finished all these discussions and beforeour work turns to the examples concerning the ascendant we mustbriefly call to your attention that [6282] so that whatever wehave described in general we shall show again in detail

134 Aestimatio

examples form a unit whose two parts logically follow upon eachother it is reasonable to assume that already in Anubiorsquos and Fir-micusrsquo common source they formed a unit Dorotheus arranged thematerial differently After the exposition of general rules for aspectshe decided to fill the remaining part of his second book with othermaterial from the common source namely the effects of the planetsin the centers [221--27] and in each otherrsquos houses and terms [228--33] this is material that Firmicus had already treated earlier in hisfifth book and Anubio must also have treated it as F22 shows26Table 1 illustrates the correspondences including also the core poemof the Corpus Manethonianum ie pseudo-Manetho 236 [123]The table is based on the order of the material in Firmicus whichmust have been that of the common source because it logically pro-ceeds from the isolated effects of single planets in certain places tothe combined effects of two or more planets aspecting each otherWhile Pingree wrongly thought that Anubio used Dorotheus hewisely included ParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorothe-us (this is the last important clarification to make here) For despitethe explicit attribution to Anubio in the heading of the first chapterthe anonymous excerptor obviously also had at his disposal a copyof Dorotheus whose name he mentions twice explicitly27 Analysisof this paraphrase shows that the scribe very soon after the startswitched from Anubio to Dorotheus and one gets the impressionthat he kept following Dorotheus until the end Note however thatthe manuscript attribution of this paraphrasersquos chapters on aspectsto Anubio is not just a scribal mistake or guesswork of a later copyistin the same manuscript the immediately preceding chapter containsliteral quotations of elegiac distichs from Anubio [= F8] Appar-ently the scribe really started the paraphrase [T8] from Anubio andswitched then to Dorotheus

This insight is important because it makes Table 1 more easilyunderstandable and has the consequence that not only F10 (fromParltDorgt) but also F9 (from ParAnub [= T8] which will in thefollowing be more appropriately called ParAnubltet Dorgt) must

On F22 see p 16926

T8342 φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Δωρόθεος κτλ = Pingree 1976 3556 andmdashbeyond the27

section that Obbink included in his editionmdash36119--20 φησὶ γὰρ καὶ Δωρό-

θεος κτλ

STEPHAN HEILEN 135

DorA

rab

ParA

nub

Anu

bio

pseu

do-M

anetho

aFirm

icusM

ath

Subjectb

220

--27

()c

F223--4

3[2]8

--226

Lost

inthela-

cuna

before

55

The

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquointhe

four

centers(κ

εντροθεσία

ι)

228

- -33

T841

1--54

F226--7

F2214

--15

F2211

--12

2[1]1

41--3

9655--6

dThe

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquoin

each

othe

rrsquosho

uses

and

term

s(τ

οπικ

αὶδια

κρίσ

εις)

Effe

ctsof

214

215

216

217

218

--19

T81--75

T876

--207

T820

8--302

+30

5--307

f

T830

2--304

T830

8--410

(F10

2)e

mdashmdash

(F9)g

F105h

mdashmdash

(F10

1)

hF1

4

3 [2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

mdashmdash

2[1]3

97--4

85

63--8

69--14

615

--20

621

622

--27

trineaspe

cts

squa

reaspe

cts

oppo

sitio

nssextile

aspe

cts

conjun

ctions

mdashmdash

mdashmdash

F3--F

66[3]

629

--31

Typ

ical

charts

Boo

knu

mbe

rsaregivenaccordingto

themss

trad

ition

followed

byKoechlyrsquosrestored

orde

rinpa

renthe

ses[18

58]

a

The

Greek

keywords

inpa

renthe

sesde

rivefrom

Dorothe

usseePingree

1976

367

21--23(quo

tedin

fullbe

low)

b

Thisis

thefin

alsectionin

Pingree

1976

361

--367

Obb

inkrig

htly

omits

itas

irrelevan

tto

Anu

bio

c

Mostof

this

long

chap

teris

lost

inthelacuna

before

55

only

thefin

alsectionis

preserved

SeeKroll

Skutsch

d

andZiegler19

682

58appcrit

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

e

T830

5--307

isan

adde

ndum

(after

theconc

luding

remarks

onsextile

aspe

cts)

ontheop

positio

nof

theluminaries

f

Itequa

lsFirm

icusM

ath618

but

ismissing

inDorA

rab

216Thu

sthescrib

ewas

follo

wingDorothe

ushe

re

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

153on

F9

g

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

h

Table1

136 Aestimatio

be eliminated from the list of fragments of Anubio This crucial pointwill be substantiated with detailed argument in Appendix 2 [p 173]

Altogether then it is clear that this paraphrase despite its ini-tial attribution to Anubio is almost entirely derived from DorotheusIt seems most plausible to assume the following relationships betweenthe authors in question

Common Source

Firmicus

Pseudo-Manetho

Par ltDorgt Par Anub ltet Dorgt

AnubioDorotheus

Can the lsquoCommon Sourcersquo be identified Firmicus provides two cluesfor an answer After his quotation from the chapters on κεντροθεσίαι

and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις he assures Mavortius that he left out ab-solutely nothing of what lsquothe divine men of oldrsquo had put forth

haec tibi sunt omnia Mavorti decus nostrum specialiter inti-mata nec a nobis aliquid est praetermissum quod diviniveteres et istius interpretes disciplinae prudentis sollertiae etdocti sermonis studio protulerunt [Firmicus Math 571]These matters have now all been explained to you in detailmy dear Mavortius and nothing has been left out by meof what the divine men of old and the expounders of thisdiscipline produced in their eagerness for prognostic expertiseand learned discourse [my trans with borrowings from Bram1975 180]

He is probably referring to Nechepso and Petosiris the major author-ities of Hellenistic astrology28 The second clue is from the presence

See also Firmicus Math 5prooem 6 animus [scil noster ] divina inspira-28

tione formatus totum conatus est quod didicerat explicare ut quidquid diviniveteres ex Aegyptiis adytis protulerunt ad Tarpeiae rupis templa perferretBoll [1909 2371] interprets this as lsquoeinen deutlichen Hinweis auf die AumlgypterdhNechepso-Petosirisrsquo See also Math 851 divini illi viri et sanctissimaereligionis antistites Petosiris et Nechepso

STEPHAN HEILEN 137

of that large collection of more than 100 typical charts preservedin Firmicus Math 629--31 The only prose collection of such exam-ples from the time before Valens that we know of are the (now lost)παραδειγματικαὶ γενέσεις of lsquothe Egyptian authorsrsquo that Ptolemymentions in Tetr 1211829 Ptolemy probably means Nechepso andPetosiris Both clues hint then at the same source30 Even if cer-tainty is impossible it is very likely that all three poets AnubioDorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified extensive prose sectionsfrom the famous authoritative manual of Nechepso and Petosirisand that Firmicus translated them in books 5 and 631 That wouldalso explain why almost nothing of that lsquobible of astrologyrsquo32 is pre-served in the original

If Obbink and earlier scholars starting with Riess33 are rightwith their dating of Anubio to the reign of Nero which is the timeof Dorotheus both poets may have versified their common sourcemore or less contemporaneously independently from each other ina period when astrology was especially en vogue so much so that itgave rise both to versifications by poets wishing to satisfy the highdemand of practitioners for summaries that could easily be learnedby heart and to such derisory texts by critics as the epigram of the

Ptolemy mentions these exemplary horoscopes in the context of the Egyptian29

system of terms In Firmicusrsquo Latin adaptation references to the astrologicalterms are admittedly rare see eg Math 6302 in finibus Mercurii and6306 in finibus VenerisNote that Firmicus moves on from Math 571 where he mentions the divini30

veteres to the immediately following sixth book without indicating a changeof sourceAlready Boll [1909 2371] thought that the ultimate source of Math 63--31

27 on aspects was the manual of Nechepso and Petosiris and still earlierKroll [1906 62] had expressed his opinion that Valensrsquo long chapter on as-pects [Anthol 217] went back to Nechepso and Petosiris ad Nechepsonemet Petosiridem haec redire haud dissimile est veri To my knowledge how-ever no comprehensive view of Firmicus and the three astrological poetslike the one proposed here has been put forth so far Note that besidesValens Anthol 217 there is another prose treatise on aspects in papyrusPSI 158 [see Boll 1914 5--10] whose internal order is like that of Anthol217 confused and it is unclear which relationship they have to the textsthat are included in the stemma aboveBoll 1908 106 = Boll 1950 4 (die Astrologenbibel)32

See Riess 1894 col 2322 and Riess 1895 186n133

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 6: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

132 Aestimatio

already contained that horoscope as an example Note that these ide-alized horoscopes at 6301 (Oedipus) 63011--12 (Paris) 63022--26(Demosthenes Homer Plato Pindar Archilochus Archimedes) and63137 (Thersites) were absent from Anubiorsquos poem as F3 ii 10--18[~Math 6301] and F5 b [~Math 63022] show where Firmicusrsquo finalremarks that these were the horoscopes of Oedipus and Demosthenesrespectively are missing Moreover it is very unlikely that Firmicushimself made them up (except maybe that of Archimedes the mostrecent historical individual and the only one from Sicily Firmicusrsquohomeland) These ideal horoscopes look quite archaic in their sim-plicity and it is noteworthy that the core of the Corpus Manethoni-anum ie pseudo-Manetho 23622 which can be dated to the earlysecond century thanks to the authorrsquos autobiographical horoscope[pseudo-Manetho 6[3]738--750]23 also contains in the same book thehoroscope of Oedipus [pseudo-Manetho 6[3]160--169] If one exam-ines the details one finds that both authors pseudo-Manetho aswell as Firmicus seem to have derived this horoscope from a com-mon source independently from each other24 This strongly indicatesthat Firmicusrsquo ideal horoscopes in 630--31 are from the first centuryAD or even earlier In order to conclude this part of the argumentwith regard to Anubio it is important to keep in mind that Firmicusseems to have drawn not on Anubio nor on paraphrases derived fromAnubio but on the same source as Anubio Whoever prefers to stick

These are books 1 2 and 3 in the restored order in Koechly 185822

The alignment can be dated to AD 80 May 272823

This is all the more obvious because also the context in both texts reveals24

striking parallels which however cannot be explained on the hypothesisthat Firmicus used pseudo-Manetho Compare for example the followingpassages that precede the horoscope of Oedipus in both texts

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

6[3]151--153 629206[3]154--159 629226[3]180--184 62924

and so forth It would go beyond the scope of this article to compare bothbooks systematically but there is no doubt that pseudo-Manetho and Fir-micus drew their examples from the same source

STEPHAN HEILEN 133

to the commonly accepted view that Firmicus drew his material inbook 6 from Anubio must then resort to the unlikely hypothesis that Firmicus regularly checkedAnubio against Anubiorsquos source (the lsquocommon sourcersquo) becauseotherwise Firmicus would not have found the references to OedipusDemosthenes and others and deny the validity of the arguments that will be adduced later withregard to ParAnub [p 134]It is now time to take a closer look at Dorotheus As has long

been observed the Arabic translation of Dorotheus (hereafter DorArab) contains a long section [214--33] that corresponds so obvi-ously with ParAnub() as to make Pingree [1976 344--367] includeParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorotheus Pingree[1976 344] assumed that Anubio used Dorotheus and that the text ofAnubio was then translated into Latin by Firmicus But why shoulda poet find it attractive to rephrase in a closely related meter (ele-giac distichs) astrological material that had already been versified indactylic hexameters by Dorotheus An additional more compellingargument against Pingreersquos view is the following as the new frag-ments F3 F4 F5 combined with P Schubart 15 [F6] show Anubiodid the same as Firmicus namely after his exposition of generalrules concerning the effects of the aspects [= Math 63--27] he con-tinued with the presentation of specific examples [= Math 629--31]25Since these examples were (as the Arabic version shows) completelyabsent from Dorotheusrsquo poem Anubio cannot have drawn this ma-terial from Dorotheus And since the general rules and the specific

Compare Firmicusrsquo explicit remarks in the transitional chapter 628 which25

begins thus[6281] completis his omnibus [ie 63--27] antequam sermo nos-ter ad horoscoporum transferatur exempla [ie 629--31] illud pru-dentiam tuam breviter admonemus etc

and ends thus [6282]ut quicquid generali explicatione monstravimus [ie 63--27] specia-liter rursus iunctis sententiis explicemus

[6281] Now that we have finished all these discussions and beforeour work turns to the examples concerning the ascendant we mustbriefly call to your attention that [6282] so that whatever wehave described in general we shall show again in detail

134 Aestimatio

examples form a unit whose two parts logically follow upon eachother it is reasonable to assume that already in Anubiorsquos and Fir-micusrsquo common source they formed a unit Dorotheus arranged thematerial differently After the exposition of general rules for aspectshe decided to fill the remaining part of his second book with othermaterial from the common source namely the effects of the planetsin the centers [221--27] and in each otherrsquos houses and terms [228--33] this is material that Firmicus had already treated earlier in hisfifth book and Anubio must also have treated it as F22 shows26Table 1 illustrates the correspondences including also the core poemof the Corpus Manethonianum ie pseudo-Manetho 236 [123]The table is based on the order of the material in Firmicus whichmust have been that of the common source because it logically pro-ceeds from the isolated effects of single planets in certain places tothe combined effects of two or more planets aspecting each otherWhile Pingree wrongly thought that Anubio used Dorotheus hewisely included ParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorothe-us (this is the last important clarification to make here) For despitethe explicit attribution to Anubio in the heading of the first chapterthe anonymous excerptor obviously also had at his disposal a copyof Dorotheus whose name he mentions twice explicitly27 Analysisof this paraphrase shows that the scribe very soon after the startswitched from Anubio to Dorotheus and one gets the impressionthat he kept following Dorotheus until the end Note however thatthe manuscript attribution of this paraphrasersquos chapters on aspectsto Anubio is not just a scribal mistake or guesswork of a later copyistin the same manuscript the immediately preceding chapter containsliteral quotations of elegiac distichs from Anubio [= F8] Appar-ently the scribe really started the paraphrase [T8] from Anubio andswitched then to Dorotheus

This insight is important because it makes Table 1 more easilyunderstandable and has the consequence that not only F10 (fromParltDorgt) but also F9 (from ParAnub [= T8] which will in thefollowing be more appropriately called ParAnubltet Dorgt) must

On F22 see p 16926

T8342 φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Δωρόθεος κτλ = Pingree 1976 3556 andmdashbeyond the27

section that Obbink included in his editionmdash36119--20 φησὶ γὰρ καὶ Δωρό-

θεος κτλ

STEPHAN HEILEN 135

DorA

rab

ParA

nub

Anu

bio

pseu

do-M

anetho

aFirm

icusM

ath

Subjectb

220

--27

()c

F223--4

3[2]8

--226

Lost

inthela-

cuna

before

55

The

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquointhe

four

centers(κ

εντροθεσία

ι)

228

- -33

T841

1--54

F226--7

F2214

--15

F2211

--12

2[1]1

41--3

9655--6

dThe

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquoin

each

othe

rrsquosho

uses

and

term

s(τ

οπικ

αὶδια

κρίσ

εις)

Effe

ctsof

214

215

216

217

218

--19

T81--75

T876

--207

T820

8--302

+30

5--307

f

T830

2--304

T830

8--410

(F10

2)e

mdashmdash

(F9)g

F105h

mdashmdash

(F10

1)

hF1

4

3 [2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

mdashmdash

2[1]3

97--4

85

63--8

69--14

615

--20

621

622

--27

trineaspe

cts

squa

reaspe

cts

oppo

sitio

nssextile

aspe

cts

conjun

ctions

mdashmdash

mdashmdash

F3--F

66[3]

629

--31

Typ

ical

charts

Boo

knu

mbe

rsaregivenaccordingto

themss

trad

ition

followed

byKoechlyrsquosrestored

orde

rinpa

renthe

ses[18

58]

a

The

Greek

keywords

inpa

renthe

sesde

rivefrom

Dorothe

usseePingree

1976

367

21--23(quo

tedin

fullbe

low)

b

Thisis

thefin

alsectionin

Pingree

1976

361

--367

Obb

inkrig

htly

omits

itas

irrelevan

tto

Anu

bio

c

Mostof

this

long

chap

teris

lost

inthelacuna

before

55

only

thefin

alsectionis

preserved

SeeKroll

Skutsch

d

andZiegler19

682

58appcrit

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

e

T830

5--307

isan

adde

ndum

(after

theconc

luding

remarks

onsextile

aspe

cts)

ontheop

positio

nof

theluminaries

f

Itequa

lsFirm

icusM

ath618

but

ismissing

inDorA

rab

216Thu

sthescrib

ewas

follo

wingDorothe

ushe

re

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

153on

F9

g

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

h

Table1

136 Aestimatio

be eliminated from the list of fragments of Anubio This crucial pointwill be substantiated with detailed argument in Appendix 2 [p 173]

Altogether then it is clear that this paraphrase despite its ini-tial attribution to Anubio is almost entirely derived from DorotheusIt seems most plausible to assume the following relationships betweenthe authors in question

Common Source

Firmicus

Pseudo-Manetho

Par ltDorgt Par Anub ltet Dorgt

AnubioDorotheus

Can the lsquoCommon Sourcersquo be identified Firmicus provides two cluesfor an answer After his quotation from the chapters on κεντροθεσίαι

and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις he assures Mavortius that he left out ab-solutely nothing of what lsquothe divine men of oldrsquo had put forth

haec tibi sunt omnia Mavorti decus nostrum specialiter inti-mata nec a nobis aliquid est praetermissum quod diviniveteres et istius interpretes disciplinae prudentis sollertiae etdocti sermonis studio protulerunt [Firmicus Math 571]These matters have now all been explained to you in detailmy dear Mavortius and nothing has been left out by meof what the divine men of old and the expounders of thisdiscipline produced in their eagerness for prognostic expertiseand learned discourse [my trans with borrowings from Bram1975 180]

He is probably referring to Nechepso and Petosiris the major author-ities of Hellenistic astrology28 The second clue is from the presence

See also Firmicus Math 5prooem 6 animus [scil noster ] divina inspira-28

tione formatus totum conatus est quod didicerat explicare ut quidquid diviniveteres ex Aegyptiis adytis protulerunt ad Tarpeiae rupis templa perferretBoll [1909 2371] interprets this as lsquoeinen deutlichen Hinweis auf die AumlgypterdhNechepso-Petosirisrsquo See also Math 851 divini illi viri et sanctissimaereligionis antistites Petosiris et Nechepso

STEPHAN HEILEN 137

of that large collection of more than 100 typical charts preservedin Firmicus Math 629--31 The only prose collection of such exam-ples from the time before Valens that we know of are the (now lost)παραδειγματικαὶ γενέσεις of lsquothe Egyptian authorsrsquo that Ptolemymentions in Tetr 1211829 Ptolemy probably means Nechepso andPetosiris Both clues hint then at the same source30 Even if cer-tainty is impossible it is very likely that all three poets AnubioDorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified extensive prose sectionsfrom the famous authoritative manual of Nechepso and Petosirisand that Firmicus translated them in books 5 and 631 That wouldalso explain why almost nothing of that lsquobible of astrologyrsquo32 is pre-served in the original

If Obbink and earlier scholars starting with Riess33 are rightwith their dating of Anubio to the reign of Nero which is the timeof Dorotheus both poets may have versified their common sourcemore or less contemporaneously independently from each other ina period when astrology was especially en vogue so much so that itgave rise both to versifications by poets wishing to satisfy the highdemand of practitioners for summaries that could easily be learnedby heart and to such derisory texts by critics as the epigram of the

Ptolemy mentions these exemplary horoscopes in the context of the Egyptian29

system of terms In Firmicusrsquo Latin adaptation references to the astrologicalterms are admittedly rare see eg Math 6302 in finibus Mercurii and6306 in finibus VenerisNote that Firmicus moves on from Math 571 where he mentions the divini30

veteres to the immediately following sixth book without indicating a changeof sourceAlready Boll [1909 2371] thought that the ultimate source of Math 63--31

27 on aspects was the manual of Nechepso and Petosiris and still earlierKroll [1906 62] had expressed his opinion that Valensrsquo long chapter on as-pects [Anthol 217] went back to Nechepso and Petosiris ad Nechepsonemet Petosiridem haec redire haud dissimile est veri To my knowledge how-ever no comprehensive view of Firmicus and the three astrological poetslike the one proposed here has been put forth so far Note that besidesValens Anthol 217 there is another prose treatise on aspects in papyrusPSI 158 [see Boll 1914 5--10] whose internal order is like that of Anthol217 confused and it is unclear which relationship they have to the textsthat are included in the stemma aboveBoll 1908 106 = Boll 1950 4 (die Astrologenbibel)32

See Riess 1894 col 2322 and Riess 1895 186n133

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 7: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 133

to the commonly accepted view that Firmicus drew his material inbook 6 from Anubio must then resort to the unlikely hypothesis that Firmicus regularly checkedAnubio against Anubiorsquos source (the lsquocommon sourcersquo) becauseotherwise Firmicus would not have found the references to OedipusDemosthenes and others and deny the validity of the arguments that will be adduced later withregard to ParAnub [p 134]It is now time to take a closer look at Dorotheus As has long

been observed the Arabic translation of Dorotheus (hereafter DorArab) contains a long section [214--33] that corresponds so obvi-ously with ParAnub() as to make Pingree [1976 344--367] includeParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorotheus Pingree[1976 344] assumed that Anubio used Dorotheus and that the text ofAnubio was then translated into Latin by Firmicus But why shoulda poet find it attractive to rephrase in a closely related meter (ele-giac distichs) astrological material that had already been versified indactylic hexameters by Dorotheus An additional more compellingargument against Pingreersquos view is the following as the new frag-ments F3 F4 F5 combined with P Schubart 15 [F6] show Anubiodid the same as Firmicus namely after his exposition of generalrules concerning the effects of the aspects [= Math 63--27] he con-tinued with the presentation of specific examples [= Math 629--31]25Since these examples were (as the Arabic version shows) completelyabsent from Dorotheusrsquo poem Anubio cannot have drawn this ma-terial from Dorotheus And since the general rules and the specific

Compare Firmicusrsquo explicit remarks in the transitional chapter 628 which25

begins thus[6281] completis his omnibus [ie 63--27] antequam sermo nos-ter ad horoscoporum transferatur exempla [ie 629--31] illud pru-dentiam tuam breviter admonemus etc

and ends thus [6282]ut quicquid generali explicatione monstravimus [ie 63--27] specia-liter rursus iunctis sententiis explicemus

[6281] Now that we have finished all these discussions and beforeour work turns to the examples concerning the ascendant we mustbriefly call to your attention that [6282] so that whatever wehave described in general we shall show again in detail

134 Aestimatio

examples form a unit whose two parts logically follow upon eachother it is reasonable to assume that already in Anubiorsquos and Fir-micusrsquo common source they formed a unit Dorotheus arranged thematerial differently After the exposition of general rules for aspectshe decided to fill the remaining part of his second book with othermaterial from the common source namely the effects of the planetsin the centers [221--27] and in each otherrsquos houses and terms [228--33] this is material that Firmicus had already treated earlier in hisfifth book and Anubio must also have treated it as F22 shows26Table 1 illustrates the correspondences including also the core poemof the Corpus Manethonianum ie pseudo-Manetho 236 [123]The table is based on the order of the material in Firmicus whichmust have been that of the common source because it logically pro-ceeds from the isolated effects of single planets in certain places tothe combined effects of two or more planets aspecting each otherWhile Pingree wrongly thought that Anubio used Dorotheus hewisely included ParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorothe-us (this is the last important clarification to make here) For despitethe explicit attribution to Anubio in the heading of the first chapterthe anonymous excerptor obviously also had at his disposal a copyof Dorotheus whose name he mentions twice explicitly27 Analysisof this paraphrase shows that the scribe very soon after the startswitched from Anubio to Dorotheus and one gets the impressionthat he kept following Dorotheus until the end Note however thatthe manuscript attribution of this paraphrasersquos chapters on aspectsto Anubio is not just a scribal mistake or guesswork of a later copyistin the same manuscript the immediately preceding chapter containsliteral quotations of elegiac distichs from Anubio [= F8] Appar-ently the scribe really started the paraphrase [T8] from Anubio andswitched then to Dorotheus

This insight is important because it makes Table 1 more easilyunderstandable and has the consequence that not only F10 (fromParltDorgt) but also F9 (from ParAnub [= T8] which will in thefollowing be more appropriately called ParAnubltet Dorgt) must

On F22 see p 16926

T8342 φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Δωρόθεος κτλ = Pingree 1976 3556 andmdashbeyond the27

section that Obbink included in his editionmdash36119--20 φησὶ γὰρ καὶ Δωρό-

θεος κτλ

STEPHAN HEILEN 135

DorA

rab

ParA

nub

Anu

bio

pseu

do-M

anetho

aFirm

icusM

ath

Subjectb

220

--27

()c

F223--4

3[2]8

--226

Lost

inthela-

cuna

before

55

The

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquointhe

four

centers(κ

εντροθεσία

ι)

228

- -33

T841

1--54

F226--7

F2214

--15

F2211

--12

2[1]1

41--3

9655--6

dThe

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquoin

each

othe

rrsquosho

uses

and

term

s(τ

οπικ

αὶδια

κρίσ

εις)

Effe

ctsof

214

215

216

217

218

--19

T81--75

T876

--207

T820

8--302

+30

5--307

f

T830

2--304

T830

8--410

(F10

2)e

mdashmdash

(F9)g

F105h

mdashmdash

(F10

1)

hF1

4

3 [2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

mdashmdash

2[1]3

97--4

85

63--8

69--14

615

--20

621

622

--27

trineaspe

cts

squa

reaspe

cts

oppo

sitio

nssextile

aspe

cts

conjun

ctions

mdashmdash

mdashmdash

F3--F

66[3]

629

--31

Typ

ical

charts

Boo

knu

mbe

rsaregivenaccordingto

themss

trad

ition

followed

byKoechlyrsquosrestored

orde

rinpa

renthe

ses[18

58]

a

The

Greek

keywords

inpa

renthe

sesde

rivefrom

Dorothe

usseePingree

1976

367

21--23(quo

tedin

fullbe

low)

b

Thisis

thefin

alsectionin

Pingree

1976

361

--367

Obb

inkrig

htly

omits

itas

irrelevan

tto

Anu

bio

c

Mostof

this

long

chap

teris

lost

inthelacuna

before

55

only

thefin

alsectionis

preserved

SeeKroll

Skutsch

d

andZiegler19

682

58appcrit

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

e

T830

5--307

isan

adde

ndum

(after

theconc

luding

remarks

onsextile

aspe

cts)

ontheop

positio

nof

theluminaries

f

Itequa

lsFirm

icusM

ath618

but

ismissing

inDorA

rab

216Thu

sthescrib

ewas

follo

wingDorothe

ushe

re

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

153on

F9

g

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

h

Table1

136 Aestimatio

be eliminated from the list of fragments of Anubio This crucial pointwill be substantiated with detailed argument in Appendix 2 [p 173]

Altogether then it is clear that this paraphrase despite its ini-tial attribution to Anubio is almost entirely derived from DorotheusIt seems most plausible to assume the following relationships betweenthe authors in question

Common Source

Firmicus

Pseudo-Manetho

Par ltDorgt Par Anub ltet Dorgt

AnubioDorotheus

Can the lsquoCommon Sourcersquo be identified Firmicus provides two cluesfor an answer After his quotation from the chapters on κεντροθεσίαι

and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις he assures Mavortius that he left out ab-solutely nothing of what lsquothe divine men of oldrsquo had put forth

haec tibi sunt omnia Mavorti decus nostrum specialiter inti-mata nec a nobis aliquid est praetermissum quod diviniveteres et istius interpretes disciplinae prudentis sollertiae etdocti sermonis studio protulerunt [Firmicus Math 571]These matters have now all been explained to you in detailmy dear Mavortius and nothing has been left out by meof what the divine men of old and the expounders of thisdiscipline produced in their eagerness for prognostic expertiseand learned discourse [my trans with borrowings from Bram1975 180]

He is probably referring to Nechepso and Petosiris the major author-ities of Hellenistic astrology28 The second clue is from the presence

See also Firmicus Math 5prooem 6 animus [scil noster ] divina inspira-28

tione formatus totum conatus est quod didicerat explicare ut quidquid diviniveteres ex Aegyptiis adytis protulerunt ad Tarpeiae rupis templa perferretBoll [1909 2371] interprets this as lsquoeinen deutlichen Hinweis auf die AumlgypterdhNechepso-Petosirisrsquo See also Math 851 divini illi viri et sanctissimaereligionis antistites Petosiris et Nechepso

STEPHAN HEILEN 137

of that large collection of more than 100 typical charts preservedin Firmicus Math 629--31 The only prose collection of such exam-ples from the time before Valens that we know of are the (now lost)παραδειγματικαὶ γενέσεις of lsquothe Egyptian authorsrsquo that Ptolemymentions in Tetr 1211829 Ptolemy probably means Nechepso andPetosiris Both clues hint then at the same source30 Even if cer-tainty is impossible it is very likely that all three poets AnubioDorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified extensive prose sectionsfrom the famous authoritative manual of Nechepso and Petosirisand that Firmicus translated them in books 5 and 631 That wouldalso explain why almost nothing of that lsquobible of astrologyrsquo32 is pre-served in the original

If Obbink and earlier scholars starting with Riess33 are rightwith their dating of Anubio to the reign of Nero which is the timeof Dorotheus both poets may have versified their common sourcemore or less contemporaneously independently from each other ina period when astrology was especially en vogue so much so that itgave rise both to versifications by poets wishing to satisfy the highdemand of practitioners for summaries that could easily be learnedby heart and to such derisory texts by critics as the epigram of the

Ptolemy mentions these exemplary horoscopes in the context of the Egyptian29

system of terms In Firmicusrsquo Latin adaptation references to the astrologicalterms are admittedly rare see eg Math 6302 in finibus Mercurii and6306 in finibus VenerisNote that Firmicus moves on from Math 571 where he mentions the divini30

veteres to the immediately following sixth book without indicating a changeof sourceAlready Boll [1909 2371] thought that the ultimate source of Math 63--31

27 on aspects was the manual of Nechepso and Petosiris and still earlierKroll [1906 62] had expressed his opinion that Valensrsquo long chapter on as-pects [Anthol 217] went back to Nechepso and Petosiris ad Nechepsonemet Petosiridem haec redire haud dissimile est veri To my knowledge how-ever no comprehensive view of Firmicus and the three astrological poetslike the one proposed here has been put forth so far Note that besidesValens Anthol 217 there is another prose treatise on aspects in papyrusPSI 158 [see Boll 1914 5--10] whose internal order is like that of Anthol217 confused and it is unclear which relationship they have to the textsthat are included in the stemma aboveBoll 1908 106 = Boll 1950 4 (die Astrologenbibel)32

See Riess 1894 col 2322 and Riess 1895 186n133

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 8: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

134 Aestimatio

examples form a unit whose two parts logically follow upon eachother it is reasonable to assume that already in Anubiorsquos and Fir-micusrsquo common source they formed a unit Dorotheus arranged thematerial differently After the exposition of general rules for aspectshe decided to fill the remaining part of his second book with othermaterial from the common source namely the effects of the planetsin the centers [221--27] and in each otherrsquos houses and terms [228--33] this is material that Firmicus had already treated earlier in hisfifth book and Anubio must also have treated it as F22 shows26Table 1 illustrates the correspondences including also the core poemof the Corpus Manethonianum ie pseudo-Manetho 236 [123]The table is based on the order of the material in Firmicus whichmust have been that of the common source because it logically pro-ceeds from the isolated effects of single planets in certain places tothe combined effects of two or more planets aspecting each otherWhile Pingree wrongly thought that Anubio used Dorotheus hewisely included ParAnub in his edition of the fragments of Dorothe-us (this is the last important clarification to make here) For despitethe explicit attribution to Anubio in the heading of the first chapterthe anonymous excerptor obviously also had at his disposal a copyof Dorotheus whose name he mentions twice explicitly27 Analysisof this paraphrase shows that the scribe very soon after the startswitched from Anubio to Dorotheus and one gets the impressionthat he kept following Dorotheus until the end Note however thatthe manuscript attribution of this paraphrasersquos chapters on aspectsto Anubio is not just a scribal mistake or guesswork of a later copyistin the same manuscript the immediately preceding chapter containsliteral quotations of elegiac distichs from Anubio [= F8] Appar-ently the scribe really started the paraphrase [T8] from Anubio andswitched then to Dorotheus

This insight is important because it makes Table 1 more easilyunderstandable and has the consequence that not only F10 (fromParltDorgt) but also F9 (from ParAnub [= T8] which will in thefollowing be more appropriately called ParAnubltet Dorgt) must

On F22 see p 16926

T8342 φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Δωρόθεος κτλ = Pingree 1976 3556 andmdashbeyond the27

section that Obbink included in his editionmdash36119--20 φησὶ γὰρ καὶ Δωρό-

θεος κτλ

STEPHAN HEILEN 135

DorA

rab

ParA

nub

Anu

bio

pseu

do-M

anetho

aFirm

icusM

ath

Subjectb

220

--27

()c

F223--4

3[2]8

--226

Lost

inthela-

cuna

before

55

The

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquointhe

four

centers(κ

εντροθεσία

ι)

228

- -33

T841

1--54

F226--7

F2214

--15

F2211

--12

2[1]1

41--3

9655--6

dThe

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquoin

each

othe

rrsquosho

uses

and

term

s(τ

οπικ

αὶδια

κρίσ

εις)

Effe

ctsof

214

215

216

217

218

--19

T81--75

T876

--207

T820

8--302

+30

5--307

f

T830

2--304

T830

8--410

(F10

2)e

mdashmdash

(F9)g

F105h

mdashmdash

(F10

1)

hF1

4

3 [2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

mdashmdash

2[1]3

97--4

85

63--8

69--14

615

--20

621

622

--27

trineaspe

cts

squa

reaspe

cts

oppo

sitio

nssextile

aspe

cts

conjun

ctions

mdashmdash

mdashmdash

F3--F

66[3]

629

--31

Typ

ical

charts

Boo

knu

mbe

rsaregivenaccordingto

themss

trad

ition

followed

byKoechlyrsquosrestored

orde

rinpa

renthe

ses[18

58]

a

The

Greek

keywords

inpa

renthe

sesde

rivefrom

Dorothe

usseePingree

1976

367

21--23(quo

tedin

fullbe

low)

b

Thisis

thefin

alsectionin

Pingree

1976

361

--367

Obb

inkrig

htly

omits

itas

irrelevan

tto

Anu

bio

c

Mostof

this

long

chap

teris

lost

inthelacuna

before

55

only

thefin

alsectionis

preserved

SeeKroll

Skutsch

d

andZiegler19

682

58appcrit

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

e

T830

5--307

isan

adde

ndum

(after

theconc

luding

remarks

onsextile

aspe

cts)

ontheop

positio

nof

theluminaries

f

Itequa

lsFirm

icusM

ath618

but

ismissing

inDorA

rab

216Thu

sthescrib

ewas

follo

wingDorothe

ushe

re

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

153on

F9

g

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

h

Table1

136 Aestimatio

be eliminated from the list of fragments of Anubio This crucial pointwill be substantiated with detailed argument in Appendix 2 [p 173]

Altogether then it is clear that this paraphrase despite its ini-tial attribution to Anubio is almost entirely derived from DorotheusIt seems most plausible to assume the following relationships betweenthe authors in question

Common Source

Firmicus

Pseudo-Manetho

Par ltDorgt Par Anub ltet Dorgt

AnubioDorotheus

Can the lsquoCommon Sourcersquo be identified Firmicus provides two cluesfor an answer After his quotation from the chapters on κεντροθεσίαι

and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις he assures Mavortius that he left out ab-solutely nothing of what lsquothe divine men of oldrsquo had put forth

haec tibi sunt omnia Mavorti decus nostrum specialiter inti-mata nec a nobis aliquid est praetermissum quod diviniveteres et istius interpretes disciplinae prudentis sollertiae etdocti sermonis studio protulerunt [Firmicus Math 571]These matters have now all been explained to you in detailmy dear Mavortius and nothing has been left out by meof what the divine men of old and the expounders of thisdiscipline produced in their eagerness for prognostic expertiseand learned discourse [my trans with borrowings from Bram1975 180]

He is probably referring to Nechepso and Petosiris the major author-ities of Hellenistic astrology28 The second clue is from the presence

See also Firmicus Math 5prooem 6 animus [scil noster ] divina inspira-28

tione formatus totum conatus est quod didicerat explicare ut quidquid diviniveteres ex Aegyptiis adytis protulerunt ad Tarpeiae rupis templa perferretBoll [1909 2371] interprets this as lsquoeinen deutlichen Hinweis auf die AumlgypterdhNechepso-Petosirisrsquo See also Math 851 divini illi viri et sanctissimaereligionis antistites Petosiris et Nechepso

STEPHAN HEILEN 137

of that large collection of more than 100 typical charts preservedin Firmicus Math 629--31 The only prose collection of such exam-ples from the time before Valens that we know of are the (now lost)παραδειγματικαὶ γενέσεις of lsquothe Egyptian authorsrsquo that Ptolemymentions in Tetr 1211829 Ptolemy probably means Nechepso andPetosiris Both clues hint then at the same source30 Even if cer-tainty is impossible it is very likely that all three poets AnubioDorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified extensive prose sectionsfrom the famous authoritative manual of Nechepso and Petosirisand that Firmicus translated them in books 5 and 631 That wouldalso explain why almost nothing of that lsquobible of astrologyrsquo32 is pre-served in the original

If Obbink and earlier scholars starting with Riess33 are rightwith their dating of Anubio to the reign of Nero which is the timeof Dorotheus both poets may have versified their common sourcemore or less contemporaneously independently from each other ina period when astrology was especially en vogue so much so that itgave rise both to versifications by poets wishing to satisfy the highdemand of practitioners for summaries that could easily be learnedby heart and to such derisory texts by critics as the epigram of the

Ptolemy mentions these exemplary horoscopes in the context of the Egyptian29

system of terms In Firmicusrsquo Latin adaptation references to the astrologicalterms are admittedly rare see eg Math 6302 in finibus Mercurii and6306 in finibus VenerisNote that Firmicus moves on from Math 571 where he mentions the divini30

veteres to the immediately following sixth book without indicating a changeof sourceAlready Boll [1909 2371] thought that the ultimate source of Math 63--31

27 on aspects was the manual of Nechepso and Petosiris and still earlierKroll [1906 62] had expressed his opinion that Valensrsquo long chapter on as-pects [Anthol 217] went back to Nechepso and Petosiris ad Nechepsonemet Petosiridem haec redire haud dissimile est veri To my knowledge how-ever no comprehensive view of Firmicus and the three astrological poetslike the one proposed here has been put forth so far Note that besidesValens Anthol 217 there is another prose treatise on aspects in papyrusPSI 158 [see Boll 1914 5--10] whose internal order is like that of Anthol217 confused and it is unclear which relationship they have to the textsthat are included in the stemma aboveBoll 1908 106 = Boll 1950 4 (die Astrologenbibel)32

See Riess 1894 col 2322 and Riess 1895 186n133

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 9: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 135

DorA

rab

ParA

nub

Anu

bio

pseu

do-M

anetho

aFirm

icusM

ath

Subjectb

220

--27

()c

F223--4

3[2]8

--226

Lost

inthela-

cuna

before

55

The

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquointhe

four

centers(κ

εντροθεσία

ι)

228

- -33

T841

1--54

F226--7

F2214

--15

F2211

--12

2[1]1

41--3

9655--6

dThe

sevenlsquoplane

tsrsquoin

each

othe

rrsquosho

uses

and

term

s(τ

οπικ

αὶδια

κρίσ

εις)

Effe

ctsof

214

215

216

217

218

--19

T81--75

T876

--207

T820

8--302

+30

5--307

f

T830

2--304

T830

8--410

(F10

2)e

mdashmdash

(F9)g

F105h

mdashmdash

(F10

1)

hF1

4

3 [2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

3[2]22

7--362

mdashmdash

2[1]3

97--4

85

63--8

69--14

615

--20

621

622

--27

trineaspe

cts

squa

reaspe

cts

oppo

sitio

nssextile

aspe

cts

conjun

ctions

mdashmdash

mdashmdash

F3--F

66[3]

629

--31

Typ

ical

charts

Boo

knu

mbe

rsaregivenaccordingto

themss

trad

ition

followed

byKoechlyrsquosrestored

orde

rinpa

renthe

ses[18

58]

a

The

Greek

keywords

inpa

renthe

sesde

rivefrom

Dorothe

usseePingree

1976

367

21--23(quo

tedin

fullbe

low)

b

Thisis

thefin

alsectionin

Pingree

1976

361

--367

Obb

inkrig

htly

omits

itas

irrelevan

tto

Anu

bio

c

Mostof

this

long

chap

teris

lost

inthelacuna

before

55

only

thefin

alsectionis

preserved

SeeKroll

Skutsch

d

andZiegler19

682

58appcrit

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

e

T830

5--307

isan

adde

ndum

(after

theconc

luding

remarks

onsextile

aspe

cts)

ontheop

positio

nof

theluminaries

f

Itequa

lsFirm

icusM

ath618

but

ismissing

inDorA

rab

216Thu

sthescrib

ewas

follo

wingDorothe

ushe

re

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

153on

F9

g

Revera

from

Dorothe

usSe

ep

154on

F10

h

Table1

136 Aestimatio

be eliminated from the list of fragments of Anubio This crucial pointwill be substantiated with detailed argument in Appendix 2 [p 173]

Altogether then it is clear that this paraphrase despite its ini-tial attribution to Anubio is almost entirely derived from DorotheusIt seems most plausible to assume the following relationships betweenthe authors in question

Common Source

Firmicus

Pseudo-Manetho

Par ltDorgt Par Anub ltet Dorgt

AnubioDorotheus

Can the lsquoCommon Sourcersquo be identified Firmicus provides two cluesfor an answer After his quotation from the chapters on κεντροθεσίαι

and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις he assures Mavortius that he left out ab-solutely nothing of what lsquothe divine men of oldrsquo had put forth

haec tibi sunt omnia Mavorti decus nostrum specialiter inti-mata nec a nobis aliquid est praetermissum quod diviniveteres et istius interpretes disciplinae prudentis sollertiae etdocti sermonis studio protulerunt [Firmicus Math 571]These matters have now all been explained to you in detailmy dear Mavortius and nothing has been left out by meof what the divine men of old and the expounders of thisdiscipline produced in their eagerness for prognostic expertiseand learned discourse [my trans with borrowings from Bram1975 180]

He is probably referring to Nechepso and Petosiris the major author-ities of Hellenistic astrology28 The second clue is from the presence

See also Firmicus Math 5prooem 6 animus [scil noster ] divina inspira-28

tione formatus totum conatus est quod didicerat explicare ut quidquid diviniveteres ex Aegyptiis adytis protulerunt ad Tarpeiae rupis templa perferretBoll [1909 2371] interprets this as lsquoeinen deutlichen Hinweis auf die AumlgypterdhNechepso-Petosirisrsquo See also Math 851 divini illi viri et sanctissimaereligionis antistites Petosiris et Nechepso

STEPHAN HEILEN 137

of that large collection of more than 100 typical charts preservedin Firmicus Math 629--31 The only prose collection of such exam-ples from the time before Valens that we know of are the (now lost)παραδειγματικαὶ γενέσεις of lsquothe Egyptian authorsrsquo that Ptolemymentions in Tetr 1211829 Ptolemy probably means Nechepso andPetosiris Both clues hint then at the same source30 Even if cer-tainty is impossible it is very likely that all three poets AnubioDorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified extensive prose sectionsfrom the famous authoritative manual of Nechepso and Petosirisand that Firmicus translated them in books 5 and 631 That wouldalso explain why almost nothing of that lsquobible of astrologyrsquo32 is pre-served in the original

If Obbink and earlier scholars starting with Riess33 are rightwith their dating of Anubio to the reign of Nero which is the timeof Dorotheus both poets may have versified their common sourcemore or less contemporaneously independently from each other ina period when astrology was especially en vogue so much so that itgave rise both to versifications by poets wishing to satisfy the highdemand of practitioners for summaries that could easily be learnedby heart and to such derisory texts by critics as the epigram of the

Ptolemy mentions these exemplary horoscopes in the context of the Egyptian29

system of terms In Firmicusrsquo Latin adaptation references to the astrologicalterms are admittedly rare see eg Math 6302 in finibus Mercurii and6306 in finibus VenerisNote that Firmicus moves on from Math 571 where he mentions the divini30

veteres to the immediately following sixth book without indicating a changeof sourceAlready Boll [1909 2371] thought that the ultimate source of Math 63--31

27 on aspects was the manual of Nechepso and Petosiris and still earlierKroll [1906 62] had expressed his opinion that Valensrsquo long chapter on as-pects [Anthol 217] went back to Nechepso and Petosiris ad Nechepsonemet Petosiridem haec redire haud dissimile est veri To my knowledge how-ever no comprehensive view of Firmicus and the three astrological poetslike the one proposed here has been put forth so far Note that besidesValens Anthol 217 there is another prose treatise on aspects in papyrusPSI 158 [see Boll 1914 5--10] whose internal order is like that of Anthol217 confused and it is unclear which relationship they have to the textsthat are included in the stemma aboveBoll 1908 106 = Boll 1950 4 (die Astrologenbibel)32

See Riess 1894 col 2322 and Riess 1895 186n133

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 10: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

136 Aestimatio

be eliminated from the list of fragments of Anubio This crucial pointwill be substantiated with detailed argument in Appendix 2 [p 173]

Altogether then it is clear that this paraphrase despite its ini-tial attribution to Anubio is almost entirely derived from DorotheusIt seems most plausible to assume the following relationships betweenthe authors in question

Common Source

Firmicus

Pseudo-Manetho

Par ltDorgt Par Anub ltet Dorgt

AnubioDorotheus

Can the lsquoCommon Sourcersquo be identified Firmicus provides two cluesfor an answer After his quotation from the chapters on κεντροθεσίαι

and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις he assures Mavortius that he left out ab-solutely nothing of what lsquothe divine men of oldrsquo had put forth

haec tibi sunt omnia Mavorti decus nostrum specialiter inti-mata nec a nobis aliquid est praetermissum quod diviniveteres et istius interpretes disciplinae prudentis sollertiae etdocti sermonis studio protulerunt [Firmicus Math 571]These matters have now all been explained to you in detailmy dear Mavortius and nothing has been left out by meof what the divine men of old and the expounders of thisdiscipline produced in their eagerness for prognostic expertiseand learned discourse [my trans with borrowings from Bram1975 180]

He is probably referring to Nechepso and Petosiris the major author-ities of Hellenistic astrology28 The second clue is from the presence

See also Firmicus Math 5prooem 6 animus [scil noster ] divina inspira-28

tione formatus totum conatus est quod didicerat explicare ut quidquid diviniveteres ex Aegyptiis adytis protulerunt ad Tarpeiae rupis templa perferretBoll [1909 2371] interprets this as lsquoeinen deutlichen Hinweis auf die AumlgypterdhNechepso-Petosirisrsquo See also Math 851 divini illi viri et sanctissimaereligionis antistites Petosiris et Nechepso

STEPHAN HEILEN 137

of that large collection of more than 100 typical charts preservedin Firmicus Math 629--31 The only prose collection of such exam-ples from the time before Valens that we know of are the (now lost)παραδειγματικαὶ γενέσεις of lsquothe Egyptian authorsrsquo that Ptolemymentions in Tetr 1211829 Ptolemy probably means Nechepso andPetosiris Both clues hint then at the same source30 Even if cer-tainty is impossible it is very likely that all three poets AnubioDorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified extensive prose sectionsfrom the famous authoritative manual of Nechepso and Petosirisand that Firmicus translated them in books 5 and 631 That wouldalso explain why almost nothing of that lsquobible of astrologyrsquo32 is pre-served in the original

If Obbink and earlier scholars starting with Riess33 are rightwith their dating of Anubio to the reign of Nero which is the timeof Dorotheus both poets may have versified their common sourcemore or less contemporaneously independently from each other ina period when astrology was especially en vogue so much so that itgave rise both to versifications by poets wishing to satisfy the highdemand of practitioners for summaries that could easily be learnedby heart and to such derisory texts by critics as the epigram of the

Ptolemy mentions these exemplary horoscopes in the context of the Egyptian29

system of terms In Firmicusrsquo Latin adaptation references to the astrologicalterms are admittedly rare see eg Math 6302 in finibus Mercurii and6306 in finibus VenerisNote that Firmicus moves on from Math 571 where he mentions the divini30

veteres to the immediately following sixth book without indicating a changeof sourceAlready Boll [1909 2371] thought that the ultimate source of Math 63--31

27 on aspects was the manual of Nechepso and Petosiris and still earlierKroll [1906 62] had expressed his opinion that Valensrsquo long chapter on as-pects [Anthol 217] went back to Nechepso and Petosiris ad Nechepsonemet Petosiridem haec redire haud dissimile est veri To my knowledge how-ever no comprehensive view of Firmicus and the three astrological poetslike the one proposed here has been put forth so far Note that besidesValens Anthol 217 there is another prose treatise on aspects in papyrusPSI 158 [see Boll 1914 5--10] whose internal order is like that of Anthol217 confused and it is unclear which relationship they have to the textsthat are included in the stemma aboveBoll 1908 106 = Boll 1950 4 (die Astrologenbibel)32

See Riess 1894 col 2322 and Riess 1895 186n133

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 11: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 137

of that large collection of more than 100 typical charts preservedin Firmicus Math 629--31 The only prose collection of such exam-ples from the time before Valens that we know of are the (now lost)παραδειγματικαὶ γενέσεις of lsquothe Egyptian authorsrsquo that Ptolemymentions in Tetr 1211829 Ptolemy probably means Nechepso andPetosiris Both clues hint then at the same source30 Even if cer-tainty is impossible it is very likely that all three poets AnubioDorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified extensive prose sectionsfrom the famous authoritative manual of Nechepso and Petosirisand that Firmicus translated them in books 5 and 631 That wouldalso explain why almost nothing of that lsquobible of astrologyrsquo32 is pre-served in the original

If Obbink and earlier scholars starting with Riess33 are rightwith their dating of Anubio to the reign of Nero which is the timeof Dorotheus both poets may have versified their common sourcemore or less contemporaneously independently from each other ina period when astrology was especially en vogue so much so that itgave rise both to versifications by poets wishing to satisfy the highdemand of practitioners for summaries that could easily be learnedby heart and to such derisory texts by critics as the epigram of the

Ptolemy mentions these exemplary horoscopes in the context of the Egyptian29

system of terms In Firmicusrsquo Latin adaptation references to the astrologicalterms are admittedly rare see eg Math 6302 in finibus Mercurii and6306 in finibus VenerisNote that Firmicus moves on from Math 571 where he mentions the divini30

veteres to the immediately following sixth book without indicating a changeof sourceAlready Boll [1909 2371] thought that the ultimate source of Math 63--31

27 on aspects was the manual of Nechepso and Petosiris and still earlierKroll [1906 62] had expressed his opinion that Valensrsquo long chapter on as-pects [Anthol 217] went back to Nechepso and Petosiris ad Nechepsonemet Petosiridem haec redire haud dissimile est veri To my knowledge how-ever no comprehensive view of Firmicus and the three astrological poetslike the one proposed here has been put forth so far Note that besidesValens Anthol 217 there is another prose treatise on aspects in papyrusPSI 158 [see Boll 1914 5--10] whose internal order is like that of Anthol217 confused and it is unclear which relationship they have to the textsthat are included in the stemma aboveBoll 1908 106 = Boll 1950 4 (die Astrologenbibel)32

See Riess 1894 col 2322 and Riess 1895 186n133

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 12: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

138 Aestimatio

Neronian poet Lucillius (think also of the zodiacal dish in PetroniusrsquoCena Trimalchionis)34 As for the concise poetical versions of au-thoritative yet endless manuals like that of Nechepso and PetosirisAnubiorsquos choice of the elegiac meter seems particularly happy be-cause it combines the mnemotechnical advantage of an alternatingmeter with the somewhat more modest stylistic level of elegiac dis-tichs which may seem more suitable to such versifications than theepic grandeur of stichic hexameters35

2Remarks on individual testimonia and fragments

The dating problem brings us to the second part of this review articlecomments and observations on single testimonia and fragments ofObbinkrsquos edition36

T1 T2 T9 F14 These all come from a collection now called thepseudo-Clementines both theHomilies and the Recognitions Withinthe testimonia Obbink rightly separated T9 which deals with aspecific astrological tenet from T1 and T2 which are of generalinterest for the identity of Anubio Pingree [1978 2422] saw noreason to identify the Anubio mentioned on numerous occasions inthe Pseudo-Clementines37 with the poet of the preserved astrologicalfragments but that seems overly cautious to me Several charactersin the Pseudo-Clementines are based on such historical individualsas the apostle Peter his (indirect) successor Clement of Rome SimoMagus and the Alexandrian scholar Apion against whom Josephuswrote his defense of Judaism Contra Apionem Why should the un-known author of the Pseudo-Clementines not have been inspired bythe astrological work of Anubio to include the figure of a homony-mous astrologer in his novel This latter Anubio whom Clementrsquos

Anth Pal 11164 [= Riess 1891ndash1893 Test 3] and Petronius Cena 3534

An additional reason for the choice of elegiac distichs may have been the35

existence of literary and funerary epigrams of astrological content that in-spired Anubio to compose a larger poem in the same meter See also Obbink1999 63--64Note that it is not my intention to give a list of the numerous typos in the36

preface in the apparatus and in the quotations from Firmicus in this editionOnly typographical errors in the Greek main text will be mentionedFor a complete list see Strecker 1989 48037

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 13: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 139

father accepts as an authority provides the Christian author withimportant opportunities to discuss and refute deterministic paganbeliefs that are irreconcilable with the Christian faith As long asone duly emphasizes our lack of certainty as Obbink [2006 iv] doesthe inclusion of T1 T2 T9 and F14 in an edition of the astrologicalpoet Anubio is justified

Since the Anubio of the novel is introduced as a contemporary ofthe apostle Peter Obbink follows a conjecture that was to my knowl-edge first published by Riess [1894] and followed by others namelythat the astrological poet lived under Emperor Nero [Obbink 199960--62 and 2006 iv] This is possible but not certain and one canonly hope that the authors of future encyclopedic articles will not sim-ply present this narrow chronological frame as a matter of fact Itwould be interesting to know when exactly the Pseudo-Clementinesoriginated and how well their author was informed about the poetAnubio Interestingly T9 [Rufinus Rec 1094--7] which includesF14 [= Rec 1095]38 is part of an important discussion between theprotagonist Clement and his father on the value and truth of astrol-ogy and a long part of this discussion [1097--10131] is preservednot only in the late Latin translation of Rufinus but also in a quo-tation by Origen (ca AD 185--2534) from the lost Greek original39This indicates that the whole passage from which T9 and F14 arederived originated no later than ca AD 200 right in the middle ofthose two centuries (the second and third) from which almost all thepapyri in Obbinkrsquos edition are preserved In this period the poem ofAnubio must have been quite successful and well known This mayexplain the introduction of a certain Anubio as spokesman of astrol-ogy in the Pseudo-Clementines and it is hard to believe that theChristian novelist openly distorted commonly known chronologicaland biographical data of the poet Anubio if any such data were com-monly known They may of course have been fictitious data that thepoet Anubio revealed about himself in his poem Be this as it maythe reference to Anubiorsquos provenance from Diospolis [T18--9 ᾿Ανουβί-

ωνα τὸν Διοσπολίτην τινὰ ἀστρολόγον] must have been acceptable tothose readers of the Greek original of the Pseudo-Clementines who

On T9 see p 14438

Origen Philocal 2321--22 (from Origen Comm III in Gen) See the synop-39

tic edition of Rehm 1965 330--334

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 14: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

140 Aestimatio

were familiar with the poem of Anubio and so it deserves our atten-tion40 As to Anubiorsquos date the combined evidence of the papyri andthe Pseudo-Clementines points to the second half of the first centuryAD or at the latest to the early second century AD

T1 Correct T14 κατελήφει to κατειλήφει and T18 πρός μοι toπρὸς πατρός μοι41

T2 Correct T23 lsquonuberrsquo to lsquonuperrsquo and T25 lsquofortassisrsquo to lsquofortassisautemrsquo

T3 The inclusion of Firmicus Math 3prooem4--312 among thetestimonia implies a problem that Obbink is aware of as his circum-spect discussion in 1999 61--62 [cf 2006 iii and n1] shows Yet hedoes not draw the necessary consequences The problem is Doesthe name lsquoHanubiusrsquo at T38 refer to the Egyptian god Anubis orto Anubio author of our astrological poem And in the latter caseis Anubio the real name of a historical individual (other such Anu-bios are attested with certainty) or a pseudonym referring to the godAnubis T3 says that Nechepso and Petosiris (secondfirst centuryBC) followed the doctrine of Aesculapius and Hanubius regarding thehoroscope of the world (thema mundi) which Hermes Trismegistushad revealed to them Therefore Aesculapius and Hanubius denotestrictly speaking the gods Asclepius and Anubis from which the au-thor(s) who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosirisclaimed to have learned the secrets of the horoscope of the worldThe only way to identify this Hanubius with our elegiac poet is topostulate that a very early astrological poet whose real name mayor may not have been Anubio chose to write under the theophoricname Anubio as if he were the god Anubis and that the author(s)who wrote under the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris actuallyused that earlier poem as a source

This hypothesis must be rejected for various reasons from allthat we know about the history of ancient astrological literature it isunthinkable that our elegiac poem originated at such an early date

According to Obbink [1999 60] the city in question is Diospolis Magna40

capital of the Theban nome in Upper Egypt not Diospolis Parva in theDeltaI owe these observations to WHuumlbner41

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 15: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 141

Instead it must have been written at least one probably two (oreven three) centuries later than the manual attributed to Nechepsoand Petosiris42 In addition Obbink himself rightly points out thatall references to Anubio in later sources [T1--2 T4--6] lsquobetray a viewof him as a didactic technician rather than a mythical bearer ofrevealed knowledgersquo [1999 62]

And what about Aesculapius We know of an early (lost) bookMyriogenesis (not Moirogenesis) that circulated under the name ofthe god Asclepius [see below on T316] but are we to think that itcontained the horoscope of the world just as the hypothetical earlylsquoAnubiorsquo did and that it was used together with this early lsquoAnubiorsquoas a source by Nechepso and Petosiris Certainly not The passagein Firmicus is much easier to explain on the assumption that theauthor hidden behind the pseudonym of Nechepso and Petosiris lethis human protagonists the King Nechepso and the Priest Petosirismake a standard claim to revelation through divine authorities (inthis case Asclepius and Anubis) without actually drawing on anyreal texts under those names Altogether then the Hanubius men-tioned by Firmicus cannot be our astrological poet43 and T3 mustbe eliminated from the list of testimonia

T316 Μοιρογένεσις is a conjecture of Claude Saumaise (1588--1653) I prefer to stick to the manuscript reading Μυριογένεσις Fora detailed discussion see the commentary on Antigonus of NicaeaF5 sectsect68--70 in Heilen 2011

T5 In this quotation from Tzetzes read (T53) ῾Ρητόριος instead of῾Εκτόριος Between Πρωταγόρας (last word on page 3) and ἀποφαί-

νεσθαι (first word on page 4) two lines of text are missing SupplyΝικαεὺς Δωρόθεος καὶ λοιποί ὧν τά τε ὀνόματα καὶ τὰς χρή-

σεις ἐπέφερον ἄν εἰ μὴ φορτικός τε καὶ ἀλαζὼν καὶ μακρός

τισιν ἔμελλον from Nikaia Dorotheus and the remaining ones whosenames and practices I would adduce if I were not likely tobe tiresome and boastful and tedious to some

Obbink basically agrees with this chronological relation as his dating of42

Anubio to the time of Nero showsBoll [1902 141] and Heeg [1910a 315--316] came to the same conclusion43

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 16: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

142 Aestimatio

Olivieri 1900a Cumont 1921 Rhetorius 582a

F7 19015--21 (alsomentioned byObbink this isRhetorius Epit4272b)

2082--8 (Obbinkquotes from thissource)

5822 (unknown to ObbinklsquoAnubiorsquo is corrupted to σά-

ρει)

T7 19032--1911(Obbink quotesfrom this sourceit is RhetEpit4278--9b)

20818--24 (notmentioned byObbink)

5826--7 (unknown to Ob-bink lsquoAnubiorsquo is here sup-pressed 5826 φησὶ δέ τις

τῶν σοφῶν)

a I am currently preparing the late David Pingreersquos edition of this com-pendium for publicationb In Pingree 1977

Table 2

In both cases the entries in the apparatus call for correction too be-cause the emendations ῾Ρητόριος and Νικαεύς are attributed to thecodex Lipsiensis of Tzetzes (which actually reads ῾Εκτόριος and Νική-

ρατος) rather than to the modern philologists Koechly and Pingree

T6 The source indication should read lsquoHephaestio 2211rsquo

T7 This text is from a chapter Περὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύμα-

τος (lsquoOn Profession and Businessrsquo) attributed to Rhetorius of Egypt(early 7th century AD) It is quoted from one of the two preservedepitomes of this chapter (the original is lost) Correct T72 τία to τί-

να and T75 ἐπιτροπον to ἐπίτροπον Note that F7 is from the samechapter butmdashas far as Obbinkrsquos quotation is concernedmdash not fromthe same branch of transmission One of them which is RhetoriusEpit 427 in the count of Pingree 1977 was edited by Olivieri [1900a]from coddMarc gr 335 and Paris gr 2506 the other one is chapter582 of the version of Rhetoriusrsquo compendium that is preserved incod Paris 2425 [= Rhetorius Epit 382] The two versions preservethe same chapter in slightly different wording A conflated versionof it which never existed as such in the manuscript tradition wasedited by Cumont [1921] on the basis of all three mss [see Table 2p 142] It is possible that the few lines between T7 and F7 whichObbink omitted go back to Anubio as well

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 17: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 143

T8 This anonymous prose paraphrase is by far the longest testimo-nium [Obbink 2006 4--19] It has been mentioned above [see p 134]and it will be proven in Appendix 2 [p 173] that this paraphrase isdespite the explicit attribution to Anubio in the first chapter headingmostly derived from Dorotheus Nevertheless this text deserves inclu-sion in this edition as an indirect testimonium because both Anubioand Dorotheus drew on the same source [see the stemma on p 136]The metrical traces that this paraphrase contains are from Dorotheusand will be included in the collection of hitherto overlooked fragmentsof Dorotheus in Appendix 1 [p 173]

This text allows for an interesting observation of how scribalhabits can distort grammar and syntax See for example T816--17

ὁ Κρόνος τριγωνίζων ῎Αρην εἰ καὶ Ζεὺς μὴ ὁρᾷ μήτε ὁ ῾Ερμῆς

εὔποροι γίνονται κτλif Saturn casts a trine aspect on Mars even if Jupiter does notwatch nor Mercury then [the natives] become ingenious etc

Correct Greek grammar would require a genitive absolute at thebeginning τοῦ Κρόνου τριγωνίζοντος ῎Αρην The reason for this andmany similar odd constructions in the following is probably that thelost exemplar from which our preserved manuscripts (C and H) stemused symbols instead of full words for those stereotypical lists ofconditions in the opening of each prediction (in the above exampleAEligΔAuml)44

T853 ῎Αρης Δία τριγωνίζων κτλ is not a duplicate or variant ofthe discussion of trine aspects between Mars and Jupiter which wasgiven suo loco [T836--40] but about a trine aspect between MarsSun and Jupiter as the parallel passages in Firmicus Math 652DorArab 21417 and ParltDorgt 38328--30 clearly show Hencecorrection to ῎Αρης lt῞Ηλιον καὶgt Δία τριγωνίζων (or the like) isneeded and the preceding line break must be deleted

The various planetary aspects are discussed in a clear order that goes back44

to the common source (Nechepso and Petosiris) first trine aspects thensquares then oppositions then conjunctions Each section of this text isarranged according to the usual astrological sequence of the planets (SaturnJupiter Mars Sun Venus Mercury Moon) and comprises 21 predictions(6+5+4+3+2+1) Saturn trine with Jupiter Saturn trine with Mars etcthen Jupiter trine with Mars etc lastly Mercury trine with the Moon

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 18: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

144 Aestimatio

In T8169 εἰ μάλιστα ἢ ἀμφότεροί εἰσιν ὑπὲρ γῆν ἢ ὅμως ὁ ῎Αρης

looks suspicious45 one might expect ἢ μόνος (lsquoor alonersquo) instead of ἢ

ὅμως (lsquoor at leastrsquo) While there seem to be no parallels for ἢ ὅμως inGreek literature many can be adduced for the type ἀμφότεροι ἢμόνος46 The corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 6118 (at theend) and DorArab 21527 do not contain the specification in ques-tion Therefore it was probably absent from Dorotheusrsquo original andἢ ὅμως may be a clumsy contracted expression for ἢ εἰ μὴ ἁμφότεροι

ὅμως κτλ (lsquoor if not both at least rsquo)

T9 The reader does not learn on which grounds the passage fromRufinus [Rec 1094--7] which includes F14 [Rec 1095] is relevantto Anubio The context as quoted in T9 does not mention Anubiorsquosname nor does the wider context in the immediately surroundingchapters of the Recognitions Nevertheless Obbink is probably rightin drawing the readerrsquos attention to this passage It would have beenuseful if he had started his quotation a bit earlier from the importantparagraph

quia ergo cum eo mihi sermo est qui in astrologiae disciplinaeruditus est secundum ipsam tecum agam ut de his quae tibiin usu sunt accipiens rationem citius adquiescas [Rec 1091]

Clemens the protagonist is here talking to his father Clemens an-nounces that he plans to convince his father who is knowledgeable inastrology by following the rationale of that very discipline so that thefather may acquiesce more promptly when presented with argumentsdrawn from those texts or tenets that he is familiar with Clemensmoves on to quote specific astrological tenets from lsquoyoursquo (plural) theastrologers47 Who are these authorities with whom Clemens asso-ciates his father who is not to be thought of as an author in his

In Obbink 2006 as well as in its source [see Pingree 1976 34932] and in the45

first edition by Olivieri [1900c 20827] The respective apparatus critici donot mention the problemCf eg in the works of Galen Kuumlhn 1821ndash1833 36314--15 ὅταν μέγαν

46

ὄγκον σώματος ἢ ἀμφοτέραις ὁμοῦ ταῖς χερσὶν ἢ μόνῃ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ περιλαμβάνω-

μεν 128488--9 ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ θατέρῳ μόνῳ συμβαίνῃ τις ὀδύνη 156028--9 καὶ γίνεται τοῦτο ποτὲ μὲν ἀμφοτέρων τεινομένων σπασμωδῶς ἢ τῆς ἑτέ-

ρας μόνης and so onSee eg Rufinus Rec 1092 secundum vos 1094 dicitis 1095 poni-47

tis pronuntiatis 1096 dicitis

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 19: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 145

own right but as one of their followers Since the father is in otherpassages characterized as a close friend and admirer of the astrologerAnubio [see espRufinus Rec 10523 = T24--6] Anubio is the onlycandidate to think of

This may at first sight seem to be an over-interpretation of ageneric reference to widely spread astrological tenets But there is anadditional argument in favor of the view that the Christian author ishere referring specifically to the poet Anubio There are two signifi-cant parallels (overlooked by Obbink)48 in the sixth book of Firmicusa book which is so important for the analysis of Anubiorsquos fragmentsRufinus Rec 1095 [= F14] corresponds to Firmicus Math 6235combined with 6242 It would have been illuminating if Obbinkhad printed both Latin passages in the margin of F14 [compare thelayout of F1 F3--6 and F16]

Since a main criterion for the order of Anubiorsquos fragments inObbink 2006 is the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--31 F14 should not be listed last of the fragmenta loci in-certi but between F2 and F3 That is if Rufinus Rec 1095 reallywere to be classified as a fragment But since we are dealing withthe Latin translation of a lost Greek novel whose author in his turnseems to have drawn on original Greek verses of Anubio the whole ofRufinus Rec 1094--7 [T9] including 1095 [F14] is a testimoniumnot a fragment It needs to be treated in the same way as T7 andT8 which equally report specific astrological tenets of Anubio in theform of prose paraphrases The extraction of a fragment from thesurrounding testimonium would be justified only if we had a realGreek verse as is the case with T8277 = F9

This brings us to Obbinkrsquos modest presentation (in a smallerfont) of his skillful attempt at restoring two Greek distichs fromRufinusrsquo Latin translation In the absence of any preserved word ofthe equivalent passage of the Greek original on which Rufinus drewthis restoration remains purely hypothetical It does not justify thetreatment of Rufinus Rec 1095 as a fragment

F1--F2 I should rather assign these fragments to the first book thanto the third For detailed discussion of this problem see below onF5

For two similar cases see pp 153--154 on F9 and F1048

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 20: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

146 Aestimatio

F1 The attribution of this text [POxy 664503 recto] to Anubio issecured apart from the inconclusive arguments from elegiac meterand parallels with the second book of Firmicus [Math 211 241244--6] by the fact that on the back of the same papyrus is F4which equals Firmicus Math 6306--7 and falls therefore in thesignificant section Math 63--31 It is extremely unlikely that astro-logical distichs on the two sides of one and the same papyrus be ofdifferent authors While I agree with Obbink on the inclusion of F1among the certain fragments I cannot follow him regarding the booknumber F1 must have been from the first book of Anubio not fromthe third [see p 148 on F5]

F1 is precious because it provides us with a much earlier attes-tation of a special doctrine that was hitherto known from Firmicusalone the subdivision of the 36 decani into 108 liturgi Probablyboth Anubio and Firmicus drew this basic information from the samesource which is likely to be again the lsquocommon sourcersquo discussed ear-lier Nechepso and Petosiris

Note that in F1 ii 11--12 οὗτοι was removed from the positionwhere it belongs and where the papyrus has it at the end of the hexa-meter to the beginning of the following pentameter This mistakein Obbink 2006 24--25 goes back to Obbink 1999 7073

F2 This text concerns the determination of the ascendant at birthwhen the hour is not known49 In the fifth elegiac couplet [F29--10]

χρὴ δὲ Σεληναίης προτέρης ἀνελέσθαι ἀριθμόν

ὥρην νυκτερινὴν σκεπτόμενον θέματος

When examining the nocturnal ascendant of a chart onemust first take the number (of degrees) of the Moon

I prefer the reading νυκτερινοῦ [codP] to νυκτερινήν [codA] whichhas been adopted by the editors so far [Cumont 1929a 14720 Pingree1973 90] The methodological distinction in this passage is betweenthe ascendant of either a day chart [F23 ἡμερινῇ γενέσει] or a nightchart [F210 νυκτερινοῦ θέματος]50 not between either the day ascen-dant or the night ascendant of a chart The reading of codP createsa poetically preferable hyperbaton (which may have given rise to the

See Boucheacute-Leclercq 1899 389 and Feraboli 1981 15949

The terms γένεσις and θέμα are synonymous50

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 21: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 147

lectio facilior νυκτερινήν) and is supported by a poetical parallel inpseudo-Manetho 1[5]277--278

ἡνίκα δ᾿ ἡ Κερόεσσα μέσον πόλον ἀμφιβεβῶσα

νυκτερινοῦ θέματος κατὰ μοῖραν ἰοῦσα φαανθῇ51

When the Moon reaching the middle pole of a nocturnalhoroscope appears to go to the actual degree (of midheaven)[trans Lopilato 1998 197]

There is no parallel for the reading of codA in the required senselsquoascendant of a night chartrsquo

F3 This text makes the correct interpretation of a debated passagein Firmicus easier the critical view of womenrsquos mysteries adopted inFirmicus Math 62924 [in nocturnis sacrorum vigiliis etc]

provides no ground (as is sometimes alleged) for connectingthe Firmicus Maternus of the Mathesis with the one whowrote De errore profanarum religionum in part a Christianattack on the pagan mysteries [Obbink 1999 89]

because the same thought is already present in the correspondingpassage F3 ii 5 θιάσοις παννυχίσιν τ᾿ ὀλέσει

F3 ii 7 κείμενος ὥσπερ ἔφην seems to confirm the correctnessof a scholarly conjecture in Firmicus Math 62924 antecollocatus where Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler [1968 213910] tenta-tively filled the lacuna with the words effectus et sit etiam ipse sicut diximus

After F3 ii 20 the interpunction must be changed to a comma be-cause F3 ii 21 is a relative clause referring to F3 ii 20 μοῖραν τήνδε

In F3 ii 23 Obbink reads ἢ δυτικῷ στείχωσι Κρόνος Κυθέρεια

τ᾿ ἄποικοι But the corresponding passage in Firmicus Math 6303si Venus uero et Saturnus in Capricorno uel Aquario pariter con-stituti et eundem partium numerum possidentes makes it clear thatSaturn is envisaged as being in one of his own houses with Venus athis side Therefore the last word which in the diplomatic transcript[Obbink 2006 26] reads αποικο (lsquoaway from homersquo) was probablynot the plural ἄποικοι but the singular ἄποικος referring to Venus

Besides there is one prose parallel in Olympiodorus see Boer 1962 499 εἰ51

μέντοι νυκτερινὸν ἦν τὸ θέμα

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 22: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

148 Aestimatio

alone That also suits the prediction better sterility (as opposed toVenusrsquo proper domain fertility) The opposite scenario is envisagedin F47--8 Venus together with Saturn in her own places ie Saturnbeing away from home

F5 In F5 b 4 after ᾿Ηέλιος insert δ᾿52 The missing end of line scansndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash not ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ˘ ˘ ndash ndash The following lines F5 b 11--13 containa numeral (Γ = 3 a book number) followed by two lines of text

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότουτοῦ τρί]του θέματος

According to Obbink [1999 101] this is the colophon to book 3 ofAnubiorsquos poem The fact that the preserved lower margin of thepapyrus [POxy 4505] follows right after θέματος seems to supportthis interpretation53 Note however that the preserved text of F5(as well as the whole of Firmicus Math 63--31 with which F3--F6present correspondences) contains nothing to which the words of F5b 12--13 can be applied as a title54 I am not a papyrologist but I dowonder if the words F5 b 12--13 (maybe also the numeral in F5 b 11)were not meant to be prospective but rather retrospective Note thatthe line ends of this preserved column are missing Therefore wedo not know if more columns of text followed and if so what theircontent was55 Another possibility that comes to mind is that thenumeral in F5 b 12--13 denotes the book that is ending as Obbinkassumes while F5 b 12--13 may be a catch-word referring to the nextbook in sequence or more precisely to the title on the parchmentlabel attached to the outside of the next papyrus roll56

This letter is clearly visible on the photograph at the end of Obbink 200652

and correctly noted in both the apparatus criticus and in the diplomatictranscriptionSee the photograph at the end of Obbink 200653

Obbink himself saw this [1999 101 on δεσπότου] although his explanation54

of δεσπότου as the lsquoruling signrsquo is astrologically impossibleAn additional admittedly weak argument in favor of F5 b 12--13rsquos being55

a book heading and not a colophon may be found in the presence of twoindisputable prose headings that precede groups of elegiac distichs in F5 a2 and F5 a 7Obbink himself remarks [1999 101] that lsquooften the book number follows the56

title in colophons rather than preceding as herersquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 23: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 149

Be this as it may the editorrsquos tentative restoration of F5 b 12--1357 is inadmissible I rather tend to assume that the missing part ofboth lines was blank and read

] Π ερὶ τοῦ δεσπότου] τοῦ θέματος

This would mean lsquoOn the ruler (ie the ruling planet) of the chartrsquoand be equivalent to the more usual phrasing Περὶ τοῦ οἰκοδεσπότου

τῆς γενέσεως [see eg Firmicus Math 49 De domino geniturae]Although there is no Greek parallel for ὁ δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος thisunusual terminology is easy to explain οἰκοδεσπότης does not suitdactylic meter nor does γενέσεως unless one resorts to synizesisas Dorotheus did in writing καὶ γενέσεως τὰ ἕκαστα διίξομεν ὄφρα

δαείης [Dorotheus in Hephaestio Apotelesm 21820 = Pingree 19763393] Therefore it is probable that in the lost lines of his poemto which F5 b 12--13 refer Anubio spoke of the δεσπόζων θέματοςBoth terms occur in other passages of Anubiorsquos preserved fragmentseg F24 οἴκου δεσπόζων and F3 ii 2 δεσπόζοντα γάμου The scribewho inserted F5 b 12--13 probably followed the terminology of thepoem For a similarly indented heading whose second line beginsright below the first letter of the first line see F15 i 25--26 [Obbink2006 47]

A thorough discussion of this problem also requires a closer studyof the corresponding chapters in the Mathesis of Firmicus F5 equalsFirmicus Math 63020--22 In his preface to book 6 Firmicus saysthat he plans to discuss the effects of the astrological aspects whichhe actually does in the following chapters 63--2758 So far thereis nothing in book 6 that would justify the assumption that Fir-micusrsquo source which was also Anubiorsquos source mentioned a lsquorulerof the chartrsquo (δεσπότης τοῦ θέματος) But this changes in the re-maining part of book 6 which is devoted to a second large topictime rulership Framed by a brief transition [632] and concludingremarks [640] the discussion of the dominus temporum comprises

In his apparatus criticus Obbink]2006 33] writes lsquoτοῦ τρί]του vel καθ᾿ ἑκά-57

στου eg supplevirsquo See also the English translation in Obbink 1999 99lsquoOn the Ruling Sign of the Third () (ie type of) HoroscopersquoThe intervening chapter 62 about the bright fixed stars is but a brief excur-58

sus meant to adorn the beginning of book 6 See Firmicus Math 6110 uthuius libri principia augustarum stellarum explicationibus adornentur

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 24: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

150 Aestimatio

633--39 It is again based on some Greek source as not otherwise tobe expected from Firmicus and confirmed by the initial informationthat the Greek technical term for dominus temporum is χρονοκράτωρ

[6331] Firmicusrsquo decision to include this second part into book 6accounts for a surprisingly long book (by far the longest in the Math-esis)59 and may be seen as an indication that in writing 633--39 hekept following the same source as in 63--31 ie probably Nechepsoand Petosiris Note also the close structural resemblance betweenthe two parts and their stereotypical underlying patterns One maywonder if it is this lsquotime rulerrsquo of the chart which the δεσπότης τοῦ θέ-

ματος announces Since the term χρονοκράτωρ does not suit dactylichexameters or elegiac distichs60 a poet could theoretically resort to ametrical expression such as δεσπόζοντα χρόνων θέματος thus givingrise to the prose expression preserved in F5 b 12--1361

In conclusion the interpretation of lines F5 b 11--13 is uncertainand requires further discussion especially with regard to the questionwhether F5 b 12--13 may be interpreted as a catchword

Another point however is certain Obbink is wrong in assigningF1--F5 en bloc to Anubiorsquos third book [2006 22 lsquoLiber IIIrsquo] It isjust unthinkable that F1 belongs to any book but the first Obbinkrightly points out that there are clear correspondences between F1and the second book of Firmicus But a second book is still nota third and what is more important even in Firmicusrsquo case book2 is in a way the true beginning of the Mathesis because the firstbook is just a hypertrophic introduction to the seven books of thecompendium proper (seven in analogy with the number of planetsknown in antiquity)62 Anubio wrote in a much more succinct stylethan Firmicus as the preserved fragments of his poem show and themnemonic purpose of versified astrological manuals demands It is

This is the length of each of the eight books of the Mathesis in the edition59

of Kroll-Skutsch-Ziegler 1968 1 (39 pp) 2 (50 pp) 3 (105 pp) 4 (84 pp)5 (66 ppwith a very long lacuna in the mss tradition see Kroll Skutschand Ziegler 1968 258 ad loc) 6 (141 pp) 7 (73 pp) 8 (81 pp)Only the oblique forms can theoretically be used by an astrological poet60

but there is no preserved evidence of such practiceThere would be enough space left for χρόνων in the missing first half of line61

13 but it is also possible that the scribe limited the expression somewhatvaguely to the δεσπότης (without χρόνων)See Firmicus Math 8331 and Huumlbner 1984 14362

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 25: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 151

unthinkable that he filled an entire book (or even two) before comingto the elementary information that the number of the zodiacal signsis 12 [F1 a i 2] F2 on the determination of the ascendant belongsprobably to the same first book of Anubio

Among the following books of his poem F3--F6 very likely be-longed to one and the same book because they form a unit havingtheir obvious equivalents in Firmicus Math 629--31 Thus I dis-agree with Obbink who assigns F6 to a later book than F3--F5 Hisreason for doing so is the book end indicated in F5 b 11--13 but itis possible that F5 which preserves less than 10 of the original dis-tichs derives not from a complete copy of Anubiorsquos poem but froma series of excerpts The question remains whether F3--F6 are fromAnubiorsquos third book (which is apart from F6 Obbinkrsquos view) or fromthe second

If one takes into account the comparable poems of Dorotheusand pseudo-Manetho [see Table 1 p 135] one finds that the latterpresents the material that equals Firmicus Math 629--31 in whatwas originally the third book (now book 6 of the enlarged CorpusManethonianum) This may be taken as an argument in favor of theassignment of F3--F6 to the third book of Anubio and of the correct-ness of Obbinkrsquos interpretation of the numeral in F5 b 11 Howeverthe evidence is inconclusive because Dorotheus managed to treat thesame material with which pseudo-Manetho filled his first two booksin the second half of his second book [cf DorArab 214--33]63

In conclusion F3--F6 must en bloc have been from either thesecond or more likely the third book of Anubio

F6 This was probably part of the same book as F3--F5 not of alater book as Obbink assumes For details see pp 148--150 on F5

In F6 ii 32 Obbinkrsquos intention was apparently to print -ετερείη

[cf apparatus criticus lsquo-ετερείη scripsirsquo] but in the text he actuallykept οετει εἰ ἢ the reading of Schubart [1950 33] In F6 ii 35b addanother breve after μαινόμενος ˘ ˘ ndash ˘64 The long quotation fromFirmicus Math 63178--85 is obscured by numerous typographicalerrors omissions of words and the inexplicable transposition of con-stituti in occasu fuerint inuenti et his tertius from 63183 to 63182

Dorotheus has no equivalent to Firmicus Math 629--3163

I owe this observation to WHuumlbner [see 127n1]64

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 26: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

152 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 37] One locus similis from Firmicus is missing F6 ii55--59 ~Firmicus Math 63186 This is important because it showsthat in the hexameter ὡρονό[μ]ον δ᾿ ὀλο[ὸς κατέχῃ Φαίνων Πυρόεις τε

[F6 ii 56] whose second half was tentatively restored by Weinstock[1952 214] κατέχῃ is probably wrong Firmicus has lsquohoroscopumvero Saturnus et Mars diversa radiatione respiciantrsquo which makesme rather think of κατίδῃ

F7 This is the first among the fragmenta loci incerti It is fromthe same chapter of Rhetorius as T7 The source from which Ob-bink quotes [Cumont 1921 842082--8] presents a version that wasconflated by the editor and never existed as such in the manuscripttradition However in view of the complicated editorial problemsconnected to the compendium of Rhetorius [see above on T7 p 142]Obbinkrsquos choice is acceptable for the purpose of his edition Notethat τὸν before πρῶτον (F75) must be deleted At the end of line 6read lsquorsquo (Greek question mark)

F8 The attribution of these anonymous excerpts to Anubio is verylikely not only because of the elegiac meter but also as Obbinkrightly emphasizes [1999 57] because what follows right after F8 inthe manuscript is the paraphrase T8 whose attribution to Anubioin the first chapter heading has been discussed above [see p 134]

In F8b correct the unmetrical τὰ ltπάνταgt to ltπάνgtτα Ob-bink apparently intended to adopt this emendation which was firstproposed by Ludwich [1904 119] Ludwichrsquos τὰ [πάντα] μέγιστα

διδοῖ gave rise to a lapseObbink commendably gives in a smaller font the prose context

of F8d and F8e but he omits the context of F8a--c SupplyF8a ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ᾿Αφροδίτην (scil ἐπεμβὰς) F8b ὁ Κρόνος εἰς ῾Ερμῆν (scil ἐπεμβὰς) ἢ νόσον ἢ θάνατον

σημαίνει ἀπὸ δ᾿ F8c ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ ᾿Αφροδίτη εἰς ῎Αρην (scil ἐπεμβᾶσα βλά-

πτει) πλὴν ἥττων ἡ βλάβη Apart from the metrical elements of this text that Obbink in-

cluded into F8 there are two more (admittedly very small ones)which Olivieri the first editor printed in expanded font to draw at-tention to their metrical character see Olivieri 1900b 20318 καὶ

μάλα χαίρει 20319 οὐ πάνυ χαίρει

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 27: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 153

F9 This is part of ParAnubltet Dorgt ie T8 in Obbink 2006and preserves two metrical fragments that are as was shown above[p 134] actually from Dorotheus Nevertheless they deserve somecomment here

F91 [= T8264] βίος ἄρκιος ἔσltσεgtται αὐτῷ Ludwichrsquos conjec-ture ἔσσεται for the mss reading ἔσται is certainly right Comparein the same source T8113 ἔσσεται the only instance in T8 wherethe correct epic form has survived

F94 [= T8277] is a complete hexameter ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε

καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ65 ParltDorgt 3821--2 contains the samepassage in a prose version (ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων)which must go back to the metrical original that is preserved in F94Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relieson himself and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Obbink does not mention that the two hexametrical fragmentsin F9 have parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 [= F11] F91 corre-sponds to Firmicus Math 6165

Habebunt tamen in quibusdam maxima felicitatis augmentaNevertheless the natives will have a very big increase in goodfortune in some cases

and F94 corresponds to Firmicus Math 6168Sed et omnia potentiae ornamenta decernit et facit talem quinunquam possit alienis potestatibus subiacere et qui sempervirtutis gratia et animi constantia alienis confidenter resistatpotestatibusBut he [Jupiter] also attributes all the adornments of powerand produces such a person that can never be subject to thepower of others and that always with courage and steadfastcharacter confidently resist other powers [my trans withborrowings from Bram 1975 195]

Maybe Obbink omitted this information because his intention is notto adduce all parallels but only the most important ones as he states

In the context [F92--3] change αὐξιφωτοῦσα to αὐξιφωτεῖ [= T8275] The65

discrepancy is due to the fact that in T8 Obbink quotes from Pingreersquosedition [1976] and in F9 from Olivierirsquos edition [1900c 211]

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 28: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

154 Aestimatio

[2006 41 on F11 = Firmicus Math 63--31] lsquoex quibus et aliis locispraecipue comparanda excerpsi et addidi iuxta fragmenta F3 F4 F5F6 F16rsquo66 However it would I think be more consistent to indicateall correspondences between Firmicus Math 63--31 and the Greekfragments This would also secure methodological consistency whileF9 and F10 are now listed among the fragmenta loci incerti theywould (if they were from Anubio) have thanks to their equivalentsin Firmicus Math 63--31 the same right as F3 and F4 to be amongthe fragmenta along with F5

F10 This is from ParltDorgt and derives therefore from Doro-theus not from Anubio [see above 129n14] Nevertheless F10 de-serves extensive comments here which will make the establishmentof a supplement to Pingreersquos edition of the fragments of Dorotheuspossible [see Appendix 1 p 173]

WKroll [1900] the first editor of this paraphrase noticed thatthe three metrical elements in F10 had parallels in the second halfof Firmicusrsquo Mathesis which was not yet critically edited at thattime These parallels are now in vol 2 of Krollrsquos and Skutschrsquosedition of the Mathesis [1968] Firmicus Math 6237 omnem fortu-nae substantiam cum maxima deiectione debilitat semper et minuit[~ F101] 644--5 alios faciunt caelestium siderum secreta cognoscere[~ F102] and 6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes [F105]67

Kroll further noticed that the same paraphrase contained severalmore elements that were in his judgement beyond doubt of poeticorigin68 He had these elements printed in expanded character spacingI shall present and discuss them in the order of the paraphrase whichis different from the order of the corresponding passages in FirmicusMath 63--27 Pingree 1986 37028 (on Saturn in conjunction with Mars) εἰ

μὴ ἄρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος ὀλοὸν αὐτῶν This is obviously adactylic hexameter even if minimal changes are needed to restorethe original69 Since the whole paragraph about Saturn in conjunc-

Add F166

On F105 see 191n b67

Kroll [1900 159--160] says lsquohexametri apparent dictionisque epicae frustula68

manifestissima quae diductis litteris distinguenda curavi ita ut certa tantumrespiceremrsquoNote in the apparatus criticus lsquoδαμάσῃ et οὐλοὸν fuit in versursquo69

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 29: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 155

tion with Mars [Pingree 1986 37017--28] equals Firmicus Math6224--8 there can be no doubt that the Greek words quoted abovehave their Latin equivalent in Math 6228 nisi Iuppiter omniamalorum discrimina mitigarit A decade after Kroll had first pub-lished the Greek paraphrase [1900] in the erroneous belief that itssource was Anubio Heeg discovered that the verse in question hereis a fragment from Dorotheus in a Vatican codex edited by Heeg[1910b 12511] the verse is quoted as εἰ μὴ ἂρ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει

σθένος οὐλοὸν (sic) αὐτῶν with explicit attribution to DorotheusThe importance of this hexametrical fragment for the attribution ofthe whole paraphrase in Kroll 1900 159--180 [= Pingree 1986 369--389] to Dorotheus has rightly been emphasized by Heeg [1910a]Pingree [1976] included the verse in question at 3696 of his author-itative edition of Dorotheus Pingree 1986 37113 (on Saturn in conjunction with the Sun) βα-

ρυδαίμονες ὄντες ~Math 62211 erunt sane hi ipsi tristitia semperobscuri Pingree 1986 37120--21 (on Saturn in conjunction with Venus)

ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν δίδωσι ~Math 62212 indignarum muli-erum nuptias decernit The words ἀνάξια λέκτρα γυναικῶν seemto be the end of a dactylic hexameter Pingree 1986 3744 (on Saturn opposite Mars) ἐκ μόχθων μόχθους

~Math 6155 ex laboribus labores and DorArab 2163 lsquomisery ontop of miseryrsquo Pingree 1986 37521--22 (on Saturn in square aspect with Mer-cury) αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροις προσώποις ὑποτεταγμένους σημαίνει

~Math 6913 facit etiam alienis semper potestatibus subiacere Inthe poetic original the first words were probably αὐτοὺς δ᾿ ἑτέροισι

προσώποις Pingree 1986 38029--30 (on Jupiter opposite Venus) ἕτερα μὲν

λέγοντες ἕτερα δὲ βυσσοδομεύοντες ~Math 6164 aliud malitiosacogitatione tractantes et aliud ficta sermonis bonitate dicentes Thesingular () βυσσοδομεύων is a frequent hexameter ending in Homerand Hesiod Pingree 1986 3821--2 ἤθεσι δ᾿ ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων isa prose version of F94 [see p 153] Pingree 1986 38312 (on Mars in conjunction with Mercury)ψεύ-

στας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολλῶν ἴδριας κατ᾿ ἐξοχήν ~Math 6245cordatos quidem et maximarum disciplinarum studiis eruditos sed

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 30: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

156 Aestimatio

mendaces The original ending of the hexameter may have con-tained the word πολυπείρους as the corresponding passage in ParAnubltet Dorgt suggests ψεύστας μέν συνετοὺς δὲ καὶ πολυπεί-

ρους [T8373 = Pingree 1976 3564]70 In that case more syllablesbetween καὶ and πολυπείρους are lost (ndash ˘ ˘ ndash)

Pingree 1986 38321 (on Mars in conjunction with the Moon)θερμόν τε καὶ οὐ δύστευκτον ἔθηκεν ~Math 6249 faciet ista con-iunctio homines calidos et quos in omnibus prospere frequentersequatur eventus Pingree 1986 38333--3841 (on the Sun in square aspect withMars) πταίσματα γὰρ πάμπολλα φέρει ~Math 6112 infortunio-rum cumulus ltingtponitur Pingree 1986 3846--8 see p 170 Pingree 1986 3879 (on Venus in square aspect with Mercury)

ἀστείους τέχνης εἰδήμονας ~Math 6131 praeclara enim et amabi-lis cuiusdam artis officia Pingree 1986 38829--30 (onMercury in conjunctionwith theMoon)

μηχανικῆς πολύπειρος ~Math 6272 mendaces Pingree 1986 3897 (onMercury in opposition to theMoon)αὐτοὺς

δὲ δειλοὺς εἶναί φασι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἀθαρσεῖς ~Math 620 sed et an-imo et verbis eorum deiectam trepidationem timoris indicunt butit is unclear why Kroll highlighted these words as traces of a met-rical original by using expanded character spacing

F11 Firmicus Math 63--31 is not a fragment of the original poembut an indirect Latin testimonium that goes back to the same sourcethat Anubio used It would be appropriate to place F11 either beforeor after T8

F12 and F13 The sources ought to be quoted as Hephaestio Epit4234 (lunar prognostication on which one of the parents will diefirst) and 4214--7 (calculation of the ascendant sign) I do not under-stand why Obbink inverted Hephaestiorsquos sequence of these passageswhich goes back to Ptolemy (Tetr 32 Περὶ σπορᾶς καὶ ἐκτροπῆς and35 Περὶ γονέων) and implies a natural progression from considera-tion of the native per se to consideration of himher within hisher

For another occurrence of the adjective πολύπειρος in Dorotheus see below70

on 17913

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 31: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 157

closest familiar environment Besides these texts being prose para-phrases of original Greek distichs ought to be placed among thetestimonia just as the prose paraphrase T8 is (rightly) placed in thatcategory

F12 This fragment reports Anubiorsquos predictions concerning the ef-fects of the Moon in Pisces on which of the nativersquos parents will diefirst The critical parameters are the phases of the Moon and theastrological gender of the zodiacal signs If Firmicusrsquo long section onthe effects of the planets in the various signs which begins in Math531 were preserved in its entirety (it actually breaks off early at5425 with Jupiter in Capricorn) it would be worth checking hisprediction for the Moon in Pisces in order to find out if the lsquocommonsourcersquo contained yet another large chapter on which both Firmicusand Anubio drew It is however more likely that Anubio was herefollowing a chapter by an earlier authority that was based not on theorder of the zodiacal signs but on the familiar relationships of thenative a chapter On Which of the Parents Will Die First like Fir-micus Math 79 or Hephaestio Apotelesm 25 The latter chapterpreserves an original verse of Dorotheusrsquo discussion of the same topicwhich was based on a different astrological method than the one rec-ommended by Anubio and located in the first book of Dorotheus71Based on this meager evidence I tentatively assign F12 an early posi-tion in the list of testimonia right after F13 which precedes F12 bothat the level of content and in the order of the material in HephaestioEpit 4

F13 It has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention that this is a prose para-phrase of the distichs in F272 Hephaestio Apotelesm 2211--15 [=F2] ~Hephaestio Epit 4214--5 [= F131--6] The remainder of F13ie Hephaestio Epit 4216--7 [= F136--12] ~Apotelesm 2216--17 isnot included by Obbink in his edition73 Note that the author of thefourth epitome wrongly speaks throughout his whole chapter 21 andespecially in the section on Anubio [4214--5] of the ascendant at con-ception while Anubio and Hephaestio actually meant the ascendant

Hephaestio Apotelesm 253 καὶ γενέτην ὀλέκουσι παροίτερον ἠὲ τεκοῦσαν71

Cf Pingree 1976 332--333 and DorArab 115This editorial mistake has been observed independently and earlier by W72

Huumlbner [see 127n1]See the concordance in Pingree 1973ndash1974 235273

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 32: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

158 Aestimatio

at birth On the epitomizerrsquos motive for doing so see Feraboli 1981160

F14 See above on T9 p 144

F15 This is POxy 3464 the first among the fragmenta incertaObbinkrsquos criterion for this group is the presence of elegiac distichsof astrological content that bear no attribution to Anubio nor havea parallel in Firmicus Math 63--31 Apart from one case [F22] Iagree with Obbink on which fragments ought to be included in thisgroup

F15 contains mixed predictions (mostly about children child-birth number of children and their chances to survive) that are eachpreceded by a short prose heading One gets the impression that inthe process of excerpting tenets that he found interesting the au-thor of POxy 3464 did not always respect the original wording ofhis source This is evident in the case of F15 i 5--6

ε]ἰ δὲ Κρόν[ος ἴδοι μ]ήνην κα ὶ [ὕ]ψ[οθεν ἑστώς

ἐ]κ δουλων δούλους τούσδε νοεῖ ξυ [νέσει

If however Saturn aspects the Moon positioned above knowwith your intelligence that these [natives] are slaves and fromslaves [my trans based on Lopilato 1998 199]

This distich is independently preserved in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 [= F2185--86]

καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

ἐκ δούλων δούλους τῇδε νόει ξυνέσει

[If ] and Saturn aspects it [Venus] from quartile positionedabove know with your intelligence that these [natives] areslaves and from slaves [trans Lopilato 1998 199]74

Deplorably there are no cross references between these two passagesin Obbink 2006 neither in the apparatus nor in the subsidia interpre-tationis [2006 67] The version in F15 i 5--6 is meant to be completeas is clear from its being preceded by an indented almost entirely lostprose heading [F15 i 4 Ομ[ ] and immediately followed by another

Lopilato follows the manuscript reading τούσδε (lsquothese [natives]rsquo) notmdashas74

Obbink [2006 63] doesmdashAxtrsquos and Riglerrsquos conjecture τῇδε (lsquothis [intelli-gence]rsquo)

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 33: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 159

such heading [F15 i 7] However F2185--86 shows that the originalsource (probably Anubio) presented a more complex syntactical struc-ture that comprised not one but two or more distichs only the lastof these was excerpted by the author of F15 who resorted to clumsyadjustments in order to make the distich syntactically independentThis accounts for the fact that the hexameter is so strangely fluffedin the papyrus [F15 i 5] It is tempting to conjecture κατίδοι forthe unmetrical ἴδοι75 but the lacuna is too short for that Insteadἴδοι fits perfectly Apparently the scribe of POxy 3464 kept thesimplex of the original [F2185 ἴδοι] unchanged He further omittedthe original information on the kind of astrological aspect (squareτετράγωνος) replaced the pronoun ταύτην with the noun referred to(μήνην the Moon) and connected the finite verb ἴδοι with the follow-ing participle ἑστώς

76 by means of a very inelegant (but metricallyneeded) καὶ This is enough to get an idea of how poetically unskilledthe scribe of POxy 3464 was and how freely he treated the origi-nal text Nevertheless his testimony is precious in so far as it helpsto determine with certainty to which planetary deity the pronounταύτην in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 = F2186 refers (the Moon notthe other female deity Venus) and to confirm that the manuscriptreading τούσδε in the codex unicus (Laurentianus graecus 2827) iscorrect Koechly who edited the Manethonian corpus long before thepublication of POxy 3464 wrongly adopted the conjecture τῇδε ofAxt and Rigler In the present edition it would have been good toreturn to the manuscript reading τούσδε in F2186 [Obbink 2006 63]as Lopilato [1998 36] actually does

F16 The first editor Franz Boll [1914] interpreted this papyrus [PSI3157] as containing new fragments of the astrological poem of Mane-tho77 He also saw that three verses (3 27 39) are pentameters Thisjustifies their inclusion in Obbinkrsquos edition of Anubio (where verse

Cf eg pseudo-Manetho 5[6]173--174 ἣν δὲ Σεληναίη ὕψωμ᾿ ἀνιοῦσα σὺν75

῾Ερμῇ | αὐξιφαὴς κατίδοι κλυτὸν ῞Ηλιον κτλὕψοθεν ἑστώς which Housman brilliantly restored in the papyrus from the76

only preserved letter (ψ) by way of comparison with pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344 refers to the astrological concept of καθυπερτέρησις Cf the verysimilar prose expression in T8111 ὁ Κρόνος Σελήνην τετραγωνίζων τοῦ

Κρόνου καθυπερτεροῦντος κτλ In Obbinkrsquos apparatus criticus [2006 44]Housmanrsquos restoration is inadvertently recorded twiceBoll 1914 1 [No 157] lsquoCarminis astrologici Manethoniani fragmenta novarsquo77

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 34: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

160 Aestimatio

27 needs to be indented) Boll also directed the readerrsquos attention toparallel passages in the Mathesis of Firmicus Obbink quotes thesepassages which are not part of Firmicus Math 63--31 (hence thecommendable inclusion of F16 among the uncertain fragments) inmargine Deplorably there is no clear indication of which lines of theGreek text are their respective equivalents This is unfortunate be-cause the Latin quotations are generally printed several lines abovethe positions where they actually belong Note that Firmicus Math461 goes with F168--13 Firmicus Math 3629 with F1618--2178and Firmicus Math 3530 with F1635--37 A fourth parallel is miss-ing suo loco [51] but mentioned among the subsidia interpretationis[67] F1622--27 ~Firmicus Math 342379 This is the only case whereone of the three Greek pentameters of F16 falls into one of the fourparallel passages of Firmicus In the Greek text of Obbink 2006 51and 53 correct verse 8 β[α]σιλήιδα to β[α]σιληΐδα80 verse 10 ὁρ[ί]ο[ς

After lsquosemperrsquo add the missing words lsquoVenus cumrsquo and note that from lsquoquae78

fortiorarsquo onwards the source is Firmicus Math 3631This entry is sv lsquoF17rsquo (read lsquoF16rsquo) The whole reference for verses 22--79

27 to Firmicus is a rather sloppy quotation from Boll 1914 3 (withoutacknowledgement) The lines quoted as lsquoFirm Mat I 12119rsquo are part ofthe paragraph Firmicus Math 3423 Instead of lsquoVenus et Iouisrsquo read lsquoVenusaut Iouisrsquo (this lapse is Bollrsquos) instead of lsquopereantrsquo read lsquodepereantrsquo (thislapse is Obbinkrsquos) The following words lsquoigitur Iouis testimonio sors eorumpaulo melior fitrsquo are not a continuation of Firmicusrsquo text but Bollrsquos commenton it Therefore they should be formatted in italics or put into quotationmarks My attention was drawn to this last sentence by WHuumlbner whoacutely noticed that it is not likely to be a continuation of the text ofFirmicus because ancient authors mostly use igitur in postposition due to itsorigin from enclitic agitur In this context it deserves to be mentioned thatthroughout Obbink 2006 the apparatus criticus below the Latin quotationsfrom Firmicus would be more easily comprehensible if Obbinkrsquos own wordswere (as is customary in Latin editions) systematically italicized and thusclearly distinguished form the ancient Latin authorrsquos words This kind ofdistinction is applied only to F4 [2006 31] Besides the lemmata of theapparatus ought always to be preceded by the number of the paragraph towhich they refer as on page 24 (proper indication is missing on page 26 andelsewhere)Correct also the index in Obbink 2006 7080

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 35: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 161

to ὁρ[ί]ο[ις and verse 34 καταχεύει (lsquopours downrsquo) to κατατεύχει

(lsquomakes rendersrsquo)81

F17 PRylands 3488 contains one badly damaged column of textNo more than roughly eight letters from the second half of each lineare preserved most line ends are broken off The meter is probablyelegiac82 and the content astrological but neither of these features iscertain Therefore the most that can be admitted is inclusion amongthe fragmenta incerta83

F18 In P Schubart 16 (PBerol inv 7508) one damaged columnof astrological poetry is preserved Line 11 is the only clearly dis-cernible hexametrical line end Lines 8 12 15 19 and 21 can onlybe pentameters Inclusion among the fragmenta incerta is plausibleNote the poetrsquos personal remark in F1816 ἐγὼ ὁδὸν ἡγεμον[εύω (orἡγεμον[εύσω) to which Schubart [1950 37] first drew attention

F19--F20 POxy 664506--4507 contain traces of elegiac distichs inthe preserved line-ends of F19 a F19 b and F20 b 2--3 F19 and F20both contain traces of astrological terminology Inclusion among thefragmenta incerta is plausible

F21 This fragment is from the first book of the Corpus Manetho-nianum84 To discuss this fragment comprehensibly requires somepreliminary information The six books of dactylic hexameters at-tributed to lsquoManethorsquo are composed of various elements taken fromdifferent sources and composed at different times They fall intothree groups that are usually quoted with the book number in thecodex unicus first followed in square brackets by the restored orderof Koechly 185885 The earliest element which was also called thelsquocorersquo earlier in this review comprises books 2[1] 3[2] and 6[3] book

These are lapses Obbink did not mean to change the text as established by81

Boll 1914See esp line 9 ending in -τυχίῃ (with a blank line following) this seems to82

be a pentameter as was correctly noted by the first editor Roberts [1938102]The line number lsquo5rsquo ought to be printed one line below its current position83

The numerals lsquo84--99rsquo in the source indication lsquoManetho ApotelesmA [E]84

84--99 (Koechly)rsquo [Obbink 2006 61 and 66] refer to the page numbers inKoechly 1858Koechlyrsquos rearrangement of the book sequence was criticized by many85

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 36: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

162 Aestimatio

4 is by a later author and books 1[5] and 5[6] form still anotherunit of uncertain date Hence F21 is not from the core poem bypseudo-Manetho that was included in the stemma on p 136 Thewhole corpus was re-edited by Lopilato [1998] in a doctoral thesisdirected by the late David Pingree It is deplorable that this editionwhich also provides a full English translation and commentary re-mains unpublished and is available only on UMI Microform 9830484(In any case this edition has escaped Obbinkrsquos attention)86

It has been observed more than a century ago that some 20 ele-giac distichs are interspersed in the dactylic hexameters of the first(fifth) book and that they are likely to derive from Anubio becausehe is the only ancient author known to have written elegiac distichsof astrological content [see Kroll 1898 131--132 Usener 1900 335--337] Obbink rightly included these verses in his edition among thefragmenta incerta His method however is unclear He starts quot-ing the first 57 lines from book 1[5] in their entirety (in a small font)although in this portion only lines 37--38 (an elegiac couplet printedin the larger regular font) are relevant to Anubio After line 57which is an arbitrary dividing line Obbink stops quoting the contextand presents the reader only with the elegiac couplets to be found inthe remaining part of the same book For various reasons he shouldhave done this from the beginning lines 1--57 do not contain a unit ofcontent but a proem [1--15] followed abruptly by a series of short po-etically as well as astrologically unconnected prognostications Someof them are of such a low quality as to deserve (in Koechlyrsquos opin-ion) cruces at the beginning of each line (verses 16--17 and 38--41) apeculiar use of this diacritical sign that is normally used to denotetextual corruptions87 The reader who is interested in Anubio wouldnot miss anything if the long quotation from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]1--57 were reduced to 1[5]37--38 And Obbink ought to have made itclear that the first of these two lines the dactylic hexameter is aconjecture by Koechly that cannot be found in the manuscript tra-dition Therefore Koechly prints it in a smaller font and does not

For book 1[5] see Lopilato 1998 263--275 (Engl trans) 394--425 (comm)86

Obbink follows Koechlyrsquos special use of these cruces without explanation87

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquopraefixis crucibus ineptissima quaeque notavirsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 37: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 163

include it in his line count88 This seems to have escaped Obbinkrsquosattention As a consequence Koechlyrsquos line count in parenthesis onthe right side of Obbink 2006 62 is from lsquo(40)rsquo to lsquo(55)rsquo indicatedone line above the position where it actually belongs

In F2120 Obbink who generally follows the text of pseudo-Manetho as established by Koechly 1858 returns here to the readingἠδὲ λαφύροις [Koechly 1851] instead of ἤθεα φαύλαις [Koechly 1858]Note that Lopilato [1998] prints ᾗστε λάφυρα

In F2142 Obbink prints μοῖραν δ᾿ οὐκ ἐκφεύγουσι attributingthis in the apparatus criticus to Koechly I assume that he meansthe edition of 1851 (which I have not seen) because the revised editiominor [Koechly 1858] reads μόρον αἰνὸν ὑπ᾿ ἐμφαίνουσι Note thatLopilato [1998 25] conjectures μόρον αἰνὸν ltδgt᾿ οὐκ φεύγουσι

F2161--62 are verses 89 and 91 (not 90--91) in Koechly 1858In F21636769 the small font is a faithful reproduction of

Koechlyrsquos layout it means that each of these three lines is based onconjecture and is not to be found in the manuscript tradition InObbink 2006 it is not made clear that the use of a small font forthese three dactylic hexameters is different from the one in F211--58where it was reserved to providing authentic hexametrical contextwithout giving it too much prominence The potential confusiongrows still wider when Obbink uses the small font for a hexametricalline [F2191] which is neither a conjecture of Koechly nor clearlyidentifiable as part of a stichic hexametrical context

F2179 δεκτεῖρα κακῶν would mean lsquoreceiver of evilrsquo (the Moon)a sense opposite to what the context demands (lsquoevildoerrsquo) Correctthe unattested noun δεκτεῖρα to ῥεκτεῖρα the reading of the codexunicus [ms M] Koechly and Lopilato Apparently δεκτεῖρα is alapse due to the similar shapes of δ and ῥ

In F2183 δούλους ποιήσει καὶ γονέων στερέσει although καὶ

(second hand in M) is preferable to ἢ (first hand in M) for metricalreasons Lopilato [1998 36] is probably right in assuming hiatus andprinting ἢ The question is complicated by the fact that Byzantinescribes frequently confuse ἢ (lsquoorrsquo) and καὶ (lsquoandrsquo) Note however

See Koechly 1858 vii lsquoquae a me probabili coniectura suppleta videbantur88

minoribus literis exprimenda curavirsquo

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 38: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

164 Aestimatio

that apart from being the original reading and yielding better senseἢ is supported by the disjunctive syntax of the parallel in FirmicusMath 6293 aut aut (this has hitherto been overlooked) For moredetails see the synoptic Table 3 [p 167]

In the index verborum the final word στερέσει is listed underστέρεσις However instead of being dative singular of the noun στέ-

ρεσις στερέσει must be the third person singular future indicative ofthe verb στερέω Admittedly the regular form ought to be στερήσειand I do not know of any parallel for the future tense of στερέω with-out the obligatory lengthening from -ε- to -η- but the context here(espποιήσει) leaves no doubt about the grammatical interpretationBesides the noun στέρεσις is in itself a rare variant of the regularform στέρησις I assume that the poet took the freedom of coiningan analogous variant for the future tense of the verb one that suitedhis metrical needs89 Lopilato [1998 199] interprets this line correctlylsquowill make them slaves or deprive them of parentsrsquo

The distich F2185--86 made its way from the original source(probably Anubio) into both pseudo-Manetho 1[5]344--345 and POxy 3464 [F15 i 5--6] In F2186 change τῇδε to τούσδε For adetailed discussion see pp 158--159 on F15

F2190 is line 349 in Koechlyrsquos edition not 351Obbink is probably right in rejecting Usenerrsquos attempt to restore

a pentameter from pseudo-Manetho 1[5]335 [Obbink 2006 66 svSpuria] But there are in addition to the elegiac couplets acceptedby Obbink in F21 some further traces of pentameters that mighthave been worth inclusion in Obbinkrsquos new edition One such verseseems to be hidden in pseudo-Manetho 1[5]168--169 (about Mars inthe midheaven of day-born children)

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ κακῷ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃσινFirst it destroys the life of parents and it separates themfrom the marital couch by evil death or dissension [transLopilato 1998 193]

This phenomenon is not limited to poetry Compare the grammarian Phryn-89

ichus Arabius (2nd cAD) Atticistes ecloge n 420 [Fischer 1974 108] whoreminds us that the correct spelling of εὕρημα is with -η- not with -ε-

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 39: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 165

Koechly (and Obbink) did not know that Hephaestio of Thebesquotes these lines with explicit attribution to Manetho [HephaestioApotelesm 2427] reading the final words as χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἢ καὶ

διχοστασίῃ Both Pingree [1973 102] and Lopilato [1998 316] sawthat this may originally have been a pentameter Neither of themhowever tried to restore it to impeccable Greek meter Yet it can berestored by changing ἢ καὶ to ἠὲ the reading of the codex unicus M ofthe direct transmission of pseudo-Manetho On the assumption thatthe original couplet was inserted into the text of pseudo-Manethothe surrounding hexametrical context may have led to the changefrom pentameter to hexameter The restored elegiac distich to beincluded among the fragmenta incerta of Anubio would then be

πρῶτον μὲν γονέων βίον ὤλεσε καὶ λέχος αὐτῶν

χωρίζει θανάτῳ ἠὲ διχοστασίῃ

First it destroys the life of parents and it splits their maritalunion by death or dissension

Moreover pseudo-Manetho 1[5]336 deserves attention Koechly pre-sents it with substantial changes as καὶ Πυρόεις μήτηρ προτέρη

πατρὸς οἴχετ᾿ ἐς ῞Αιδην while the manuscript transmission (followedby Lopilato [1998 36]) reads a pentameter ἡ μήτηρ προτέρη οἴχεται

εἰς ᾿ΑΐδηνWhile it is generally believed that only book 1[5] contains scat-

tered elegiac fragments two more of them may be contained in book5[6] These two books are closely related to each other and form to-gether what Koechly considered to be the youngest part of the pseudo-Manethonian corpus90 Lopilato interprets the somewhat damagedverse 5[6]292 φαινόμενον πάλιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι as a pentameterand prints τιόμενοι πᾶσιν καὶ μακαριζόμενοι [cf Koechly 1858 xxviiilsquoquasi pentameter essetrsquo] Lopilato further suspects [1998 408] thatbeneath the corrupt hexameter verse 5[6]55 another original pen-tameter may be hidden which he tentatively restores thus ψυχρὸς

γάρ τε πέλει τῇ δὲ Κρόνοιο βολή (lsquoFor you see Saturn is cold andso too is its rayrsquo)91

Therefore they come last as books 5 and 6 in his rearrangement90

Lopilatorsquos translation does not convince me91

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 40: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

166 Aestimatio

It remains to ask if there are apart from the elegiac meter tex-tual correspondences with the common source of Anubio and Firmi-cus (as indirectly attested in books 5--6 of Firmicus) which supportthe suspicion that the elegiac distichs in pseudo-Manetho go back toAnubio Some of these distichs are preserved in a too fragmentaryform as to allow for comparisons especially when the whole astro-nomical protasis is missing [eg F2171] But some other distichsyield interesting results even if these are not as striking as the par-allels that Weinstock and Obbink detected between F3 F4 F5 F6and Firmicus Math 629--31 I shall present two cases where the apo-doses [A] are virtually identical while the protases [P] are slightlydifferent yet not so different as to obscure the fact that there mustbe some relationship between the Greek and the Latin versions [seeTable 3]92

More difficult to judge are cases like pseudo-Manetho 1[5]8991[= F2161--62]

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThe passages to compare are Firmicus Math 61516--17 esp linguam sic positi tardo sono vocisinpediunt ut in ipsis faucibus tardis conatibus inpedita verba defici-ant aut verba linguae obligatione confundunt Dorotheus [Pingree 1976 35130--3524] esp δυσγλώττους ἢ τραυ-

λοὺς σημαίνει βλαβήσεται ἡ λαλιά

ParltDorgt 37525--3762 esp βραδυγλώσσους καὶ δυσέκφορον

τὴν λαλιὰν ἔχοντας ἢ τραυλούς and Dorotheus Arabus 2612--13 esp lsquoit indicates a stammer of thetongue and few words or he will be a lisperrsquo

This time the astronomical protases are all identical (Mercury inopposition with Saturn while the Moon is in conjunction with oneof them) but the astrological apodoses are different while the locisimiles quoted above unanimously predict a speaking disability thepseudo-Manethonian passage insists on a mental disorder But thereis more to be observed Koechlyrsquos rearrangements easily make oneoverlook that the manuscript tradition has another hexameter be-tween lines 89 and 91 Lopilato prints the passage without comment

Complex astronomical protases are more likely to be corrupted than the92

rather simple astrological apodoses

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 41: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 167

pseudo-Manetho Firmicus Math

1[5]122 124 124b 128 6305[= F2167--70]

[P] ῎Αρης δ᾿ ἢν τετράγωνον ἴδοι καλὴν

᾿Αφροδίτην | μαρτυρίην τούτῳ καὶ

Κρόνος ἀμφιβάλοι

[P] Si Mars et Luna diametra sibifuerint radiatione contrarii et eas-dem ambo in diametro constitutipartes accipiant Venus vero in dex-tro eorum quadrato fuerit constitutaet Venerem de diametro Saturnusrespiciens per sinistrum quadratumLunam Martemque pulsaverit utVenerem quidem de diametro Lunamvero et Martem de quadrato respiciatet Mercurius MC possederit

[A] εὐνούχους στείρους ὁτὲ δ᾿

ἑρμαφρόδιτον ἔτευξαν | δισσάς ἀχρή-

στους εἰς ἓν ἔχοντα φύσεις

[A] ex hac stellarum mixtura aut ste-riles aut hermaphroditi aut certe gene-rantur eunuchi

1[5]341--345 [= F2182--86] 6293--4[P] ᾿Ηελίῳ τετράγωνος ῎Αρης Μήνῃ δέ

τε Φαίνων

[P] Si Lunama de diametro Mars etSaturnus pariter aspexerint et nullabenivolarum stellarum vel Lunam velillos qui sunt in diametro constitutisalutari radiatione convenerit

[A] δούλους ποιήσει ἢ γονέων στερέσει [A] aut servos efficiet ista coniunctioaut privatos parentum praesidio mise-ro faciet orbitatis onere praegravari

[P] ἢν δ᾿ ἔτι καὶ Παφίη κατεναντίον

῎Αρεος ἔλθῃ | καὶ ταύτην τετράγωνος

ἴδοι Κρόνος ὑψόθεν ἑστώς

[P] (4) Si Venerem et Lunam in di-versis locis constitutas Saturnus etMars quadrata vel diametra radiationerespexerint et his omnibus Iovis opor-tunum testimonium denegetur

[A] ἐκ δούλων δούλους τούσδεb

νόει

ξυνέσει

[A] a servis parentibus natos ista con-iunctio perpetuo faciet servitutis onerepraegravari

a One is tempted to conjecture lsquoSi ltSolem etgt Lunamrsquob For τούσδε and not τῇσδε see the comments on F5 p 148

Table 3

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 42: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

168 Aestimatio

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς93

κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςMercury having Saturn and the Moon in opposition andbeing encardined opposite the ascendant makes [people] whoare mad and deranged [trans Lopilato 1998 80]I wonder if one pentameter has dropped out after the first line

a pentameter in which the speaking disability was mentioned maybethus

῾Ερμείας διάμετρον ἔχων Κρόνον ἠδὲ Σελήνην

ltδυσγλώττους τεύχει τραυλοὺς τὴν λαλιάνgt94

κεντρωθεὶς δ᾿ αὐτὸς κατ᾿ ἐναντίον ὡρονόμοιο

ἐμμανέας τεύχει τ᾿ ἠδὲ φρενοβλαβέαςThis would imply a progression from a moderate disability to a severeone both belonging to the astrological domain of Mercury (speak-ing writing reading communication sciences mental skills) thelatter one occurring only under particularly disadvantageous circum-stances when Mercury is setting The context of Firmicus Math615 contains other references to the centers and the places of thedodecatropos for example 6153 and 61510 Compare especially6152--3 where a similar progression from simple opposition (Saturn-Jupiter) to the additional requirement that Saturn be rising is foundTherefore pseudo-Manetho 1[5]89--91 may well go back to the samecommon source on which Firmicus Dorotheus and also Anubio drew[see the stemma on p 136] However the absence of the reference tothe setting point in all the loci similes that have been adduced abovesuggests that Anubio if he really is the author of the two distichsquoted in the pseudo-Manethonian corpus added the latter disticheither Marte suo or drew (or inferred) it from the section of the com-mon source that dealt with κεντροθεσίαι especially from the chapter

ἀυτὸς is the reading of the Liber Halensis αὐτοῖς that of the codex Lauren-93

tianus (followed by Koechly)With spondiazon and intentionally onomatopoeic accumulation of the den-94

tals -δ- and -τ- My tentative restoration of the pentameter means lsquocreates[people] with a speaking disability lisping in their talkrsquo

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 43: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 169

on Mercury in the centers95 That Anubio was familiar with the sec-tion on κεντροθεσίαι is clear from F223-4 [see below]

Maybe a close examination of the remaining elegiac elements inthe Manethonian corpus will reveal some more correspondences withFirmicus and the other texts that go back to the common source espe-cially if one keeps in mind that many of these elegiac elements are mu-tilated and entire lines are missing which makes the comparison awk-ward Such an endeavor would however go beyond the scope of thepresent article Suffice it to have pointed outwhat remains to be done

F22 This fragment is transmitted in the commentary on Job byJulian the Arian whom Usener [1900 335--336] who first drew schol-arsrsquo attention to this fragment mistakenly identified with the sixthcentury bishop Julian of Halicarnassus Hagedorn [1973 lvi] themodern editor of this work was able to show that it was writtenmuch earlier between AD 357 and 365 The commentary on Job387 ὅτε ἐγεννήθη ἄστρα ᾔνεσάν με φωνῇ μεγάλῃ πάντες ἄγγελοί

μου preserves five separate fragments of elegiac astrological poetry(four distichs and one pentameter) Julian addresses the astrolog-ical poet by way of apostrophe in the second person singular (κα-

ταψεύδῃ συνregδεις φής λέγεις) yet without mentioning his nameThat seems to be the reason why Obbink placed F22 among thefragmenta incerta together with other fragments in elegiac distichsthat (a) bear no explicit attribution and (b) have no equivalent inFirmicus Math 63--31 In the present case however it has beenoverlooked that condition (b) is not fulfilled See the introductorywords of Julian τί δ᾿ ἄρα τῶν ἄστρων καταψεύδῃ λέγων ὅτι ἂν

τριγωνίσῃ ῎Αρης τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην μοιχοὺς ποιεῖ [F221--2] This refer-ence to the effect of Mars in trine aspect with Venus corresponds toFirmicus Math 65396 Therefore F221--2 would belong among thefragmenta if it were original metrical text However it is a prose

The relevant passages of the preserved texts are in Pingree 1976 36624--95

36720 DorArab 227 pseudo-Manetho 3[2]90--105Firmicus however envisages only the positive effects of this astrological96

aspect quottidiana lucra ex assidua quaestuum continuatione decernunt etprosperi matrimonii nuptias perficiunt

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 44: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

170 Aestimatio

paraphrase Therefore it belongs among the testimonia with a ref-erence to the following original verses that are to be listed among thefragmenta97

Dorotheus treated the same aspect as is clear from ParltDorgt3846--8

πρὸς δὲ τὴν ᾿Αφροδίτην τρίγωνος ὢν ὁ ῎Αρης εὐπορίαν καὶ λέ-

χος εὔνυμφον δίδωσιν φιλοσκόσμους ποιεῖ καὶ μεγαλόφρονας

καὶ πολλῶν γυναικῶν λέχη θηρώντας

and from ParAnubltet Dorgt 34622--24 [= T858--60]ὁ ῎Αρης ᾿Αφροδίτην τριγωνίζων ἐμπόρους εὐγάμους φιλοκόσ-

μους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας ποιεῖ οἱ τοιοῦτοι δὲ πολλῶν γυναι-

κῶν λέχη θηρῶσιν ἤτοι μοιχοὶ γίνονταιThe similar wording (note also the hunting metaphor in both ver-sions) shows that both paraphrases drew on the same source ieDorotheus While the version in ParltDorgt seems to preserve apoetical expression of the original (λέχος εὔνυμφον) it may needemendation of εὐπορίαν to ἐμπορίαν (maybe εὐπορίαν originatedunder the influence of the following εὔνυμφον)

Now back to Julian Note that the first elegiac distich quotedby him [F223--4] is about the luminaries together in a center whilethe second and third distichs quoted by him [F226--7 and F2211--12] are about the effects of Mars in a lsquohousersquo of Jupiter (ie in Sagit-tarius or Pisces) and of Saturn in a lsquohousersquo of Venus (ie in Taurusor Libra) These predictions belong to the κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις which were discussed in the same order in the commonsource (probably Nechepso and Petosiris) that has been analyzed inthe first part of this review article While Firmicus translated thismaterial into Latin Dorotheus and pseudo-Manetho versified it98Apparently Anubio did the same and it is almost certain that hedid so before embarking upon the discussion of the aspects Withinthat earlier section the κεντροθεσίαι must have preceded the τοπικαὶ

διακρίσεις as Julianrsquos words καὶ μετὰ βραχέα [F225] prove Julianalso clarifies the relative order of all other elements in F22 except for

Compare Obbinkrsquos analogous treatment of T6F2 and T8F9 See also97

T7F7 which however do not immediately cohere in the sourceFor details see Table 1 p 13598

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 45: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 171

the transition between the two halves F221--9 and F2210--15 Al-though F2210--15 comes later in Julianrsquos text its metrical elementsmust have preceded those of F226--7 in Anubiorsquos original not onlybecause Saturn precedes Mars in the typical descending order of theplanets but also because we have specific evidence to this effect fromthe order of the corresponding passages on τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις inDorotheus99

Altogether then Julianrsquos remarks and the preserved astrologi-cal treatments of κεντροθεσίαι and τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις show beyondreasonable doubt that Anubio followed the order of the material ashe found it in the common source As a consequence F22 ought tobe placed between F2 and F3 and the various metrical elements ofF22 which probably belonged to the same book of the original oughtto succeed each other in the following order as distinct fragments100F223--4 F2211--15 F226--9101

Some final remarks on F22 Julianrsquos quotations require more emendations than this badly pre-

served text has hitherto received For example F226 εἰ δ᾿ ῎Αρην

ἐσίδοις εἰς τὸν Διὸς ἀγλαὸν οἶκον is certainly not an authentic hexa-meter of Anubio but its distortion by a Byzantine scribe Its sec-ond half must have been ἐν τῷ Διὸς ἀγλαῷ οἴκῳ in the original [cfF2211 ἐν Κύπριδος οἴκῳ] In addition F226 ἐσίδοις and F2211ἐσίδῃς look suspicious (originally κατ-) and so does F2211 γε-

ραρόν [see app crit I prefer Usenerrsquos conjecture παρέοντ᾿] F223 κεντρογραφηθείσης (lsquoplaced in a center of the drawingrsquo) isthe only attestation of the verb κεντρογραφέω

102 and commend-ably highlighted as such (with an asterisk) in the index verborum

F2211--12 ~Pingree 1976 35719--23 [= T8421--425 Obbink] ~DorArab99

2283 F226--7 ~Pingree 1976 35817--18 [= T8448--449] ~DorArab2302Compare Obbinkrsquos commendable distinction between T4 and T5 both from100

the same work of TzetzesF2211--15 came before F226--9 because Saturn precedes Mars in the typical101

descending order of the planetsNote however that there is also one attested case of the compound συνκεν-

102

τρογραφέω in Greek see Cumont 1929b 1743 συγκεντρογραφηθῇ

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 46: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

172 Aestimatio

[Obbink 2006 69--79]103 Interestingly this verb describes astro-nomical positions not only with reference to the observerrsquos horizonbut also with reference to the chart drawn up by the astrologer toillustrate the heavenly alignment In F223--4 Dorotheus did not discuss the conjunction of the lu-minaries in a center as the relevant chapters in DorArab 221--22 Pingree 1976 36116--36216 and ParltDorgt show104 Hencewe have yet another argument against Anubiorsquos dependence onDorotheus In F2212 γάλλους ἢ μοιχοὺς ἔννεπε τὴν γένεσιν the person bornwith Saturn in a house of Venus [F2211] is called by way of a fre-quent astrological metonymy lsquothe birthrsquo (ἡ γένεσις for ὁ γεννηθείς)The grammatical congruence between direct object (singular) andpredicative nouns (plural) is awkward but somewhat mitigated bythe astrological concept of typical alignments under which severallsquocopiesrsquo of the same type of human being can be born For thisconcept compare eg Firmicus Math 63025 where the sameplanetary alignment is said to have caused the births of two fa-mous lyric poets Archilochus and Pindar

3 Rearrangement of the preserved testimonia and fragments

In light of the first two parts of this article I suggest rearranging thepreserved testimonia and fragments of Anubio as follows [see Table4a--e on pp 185--189] I use a single asterisk () to indicate thatthe passage in question was placed in another category105 by ObbinkSome elements of the mixed elegiac predictions in F21 deserve tobe mentioned among the certain fragments but only in the form ofreferences preceding and following F6 in a smaller font and withoutbeing assigned a number of their own because they are too uncertainto justify their definitive excision from F21

In the same index correct ἄποικοις to ἄποικος ἄφραστοs to ἄφραστος103

βασιλήιδα to βασιληΐς γεραρόν to γεραρός ἤθεσιν to ἦθος μειρόμαι toμείρομαι ὀλίγας to ὀλίγος and στέρεσις to στερέωAs to the omission in ParltDorgt see Kroll Skutsch and Ziegler 1968104

2128Fragmenta Fragmenta loci incerti Fragmenta incerta105

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 47: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 173

APPENDIX 1DOROTHEUS ON ASPECTS

Addenda to Pingreersquos Collection [1976] of the Fragments ofDorotheus of Sidon

Pingree included only ParAnubltet Dorgt in his collection not ParltDorgt Since the latter paraphrase contains a considerable numberof obvious metrical fragments and the former paraphrase containsthree of which only one was highlighted as such by Pingree106 it willbe useful to give a list of all fragments of the Greek original text ofDorotheus from the section on aspects that corresponds to DorArab214--19 Any uncertain elements are underlined See Table 5 on pp190--192

APPENDIX 2THE SOURCE OF THE PARAPHRASE T8

This appendix serves to substantiate the claim made above on p 134that the paraphrase T8 is despite its explicit attribution to Anubioin the heading of the first chapter mostly derived from Dorotheusand has therefore in this review rightly been labeled lsquoParAnubltet Dorgtrsquo

The metrical fragments in this paraphrase that Obbink consid-ered relevant to Anubio F91 [T8264] and F94 [T8277] are fromthe three page chapter that deals with oppositions [T8208--307] Al-ready in the previous chapter on square aspects [T876--207] thescribe must have switched from Anubio to Dorotheus as the sectionon Mars in square aspect with Mercury shows [T8170--173]

εἰ δὲ τὸν ῎Αρην ὁ ῾Ερμῆς ἐπιδεκατεύει δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσεν

πανούργους ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας οἱ τοιοῦτοι γὰρ ἀπὸ ἄλλου

εἰς ἄλλον μετέρχονται ὅπως κακόν τι αὐτοῖς προστριψάμενοι

προδώσουσιν αὐτοὺς καὶ τῶν χρημάτων γυμνώσουσιν

By way of centered formatting and blank lines preceding and following the106

hexameter see Pingree 1976 3536 This is item 11 F94 in Table 5b p191

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 48: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

174 Aestimatio

The beginning of the apodosis seems to go back to a metrical originallike δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσσε πανούργους -- ˘ ˘ ndash macr107 The Latin equivalentis Firmicus Math 6119

malos malignos malitiososque perficiet [~δεινοὺς ἐξετέλεσε]pessima ac pestifera semper cupiditate mentis armatos om-nia circumscriptionum exercentes officia [~πανούργους] ra-paces et qui de rebus alienis varia mentis cupiditate pascantur[~ἀλλοτρίων ἅρπαγας]

There is no equivalent in ParltDorgt A fortunate coincidence hasit that Rhetorius adapted the same metrical original on which thescribe of ParAnubltet Dorgt [= T8] drew in his discussion of thenativity of the grammarian Pamprepius of Panopolis [AD 440--484]which is Rhetorius 5113--117 or more precisely in 5115 the chapterthat discusses why Pamprepius was a traitor This chapter reads inPingreersquos forthcoming attempt to emend the badly corrupted codexunicus Paris gr 2425 (dactylic hexameters are indented)῞Ορα τὸν ῾Ερμῆν καθυπερτεροῦντα τὸν ῎Αρην κατὰ τετράγωνον φησὶ

γάρ τις τῶν σοφῶν108

εἰ δέ νυ τετράπλευρος ἐῶν τὸν ἀνώτερον ἴσχει

῾Ερμείας βαιὸν δὲ τόπον φltαgtυλώτατος ῎Αρης

δεινῶς ἐξετέλεσltσgtε πανούργος ἤτε μέλοντας

ἁρπαγὰς καὶ ἀλλοτρίων στερήσεις ltποιεῖνgtεἰς ἕτερον δ᾿ ἑτέρου μετανltάστgtασιν ἀνέρος ἄνδρα

ἄλltλgtοτ᾿ εὕρομεν καὶ τὸ λοιπόν

ἐνισκήψουσι ltπρgtοδόντες

ltσgtφὶltνgt κακομηχανίῃ κτεάνων δ᾿ ltἀποgtγυμνώσουσιν

This is not the place to discuss Rhetorius 5115 in detail For previousattempts to restore this passage and for the indispensable apparatuscriticus see Pingree 1976 368109 Suffice it to say that the reading

Cf eg Homer Od 2110 = 24146 and (in an astrological context) pseudo-107

Manetho 3[2]169 with ἐξετέλεσσε in the same positionThe names of the sources quoted are systematically suppressed in this branch108

of the transmission of Rhetorius [cod Paris 2425] In the lost original Rheto-rius must have mentioned DorotheusSee further Stegemann 1943 122--125 who provides a synoptic table that109

includes also his German translation of fol 4 of the Arabic excerpt whichwas omitted by Pingree [see note a in Table 5a [p 190]

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 49: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 175

δεινοὺς of the paraphrase [T8171] is preferable to Cumontrsquos conjec-ture δεινῶς for the manuscript reading δυνὸς in Rhetorius 51152which Pingree accepted and more importantly that the source ofboth passages [T8170--173 Rhetorius 5115] was undoubtedly writ-ten in stichic dactylic hexameters In other words the scribe of theparaphrase cannot have followed the elegiac distichs of Anubio whenwriting T8170--173

In the following chapter on oppositions [T8208-307] which con-tains the two elements that Obbink assigned to Anubio [T8264 =F91 and T8277 = F94] the scribe kept following Dorotheus as ar-guments drawn from the beginning and from the end of this chapterindicate Regarding the beginning compare the paragraph aboutSaturn in opposition to Mars in the paraphrasersquos version [T8211--226] with DorArab 2163--9 and ParltDorgt 3741--14110 As forthe end note that the opposition of the luminaries is missing suoloco in the paraphrase111 as it is missing in the Arabic translationof Dorotheus Probably Dorotheus himself omitted it But it waspresent in the common source as Firmicus Math 618 shows whohas this paragraph where one would expect it Interestingly the para-phrase adds the missing paragraph at the end of the chapter on oppo-sitions [T8305--307 see note f in Table 1 p 135] certainly not fromDorotheus because we would then expect to find an equivalent rightafter DorArab 217 where nothing of the sort is to be found In alllikelihood the scribe of the paraphrase made the addendum based onhis second source Anubio which he compared after completing hischapter on oppositions But altogether he was following Dorotheusand therefore F9 Obbink [T8264 and T8277] which falls into thischapter on oppositions is to be excluded from the edition of AnubioThis is confirmed by the fact that the other paraphrase which Heeg[1910a] proved to be from Dorotheus contains the words ἤθεσι δ᾿

ὁρμητὴς καὶ ἄλλῳ τινὶ οὐκ εἴκων [ParltDorgt 3821--2] which areundeniably a prose version of what F94 [= T8277] preserves in themetrical original ie ἤθεσιν ὁρμητήν τε καὶ οὐκ εἴκοντά περ ἄλλῳ

The equivalent in Firmicus is Math 6154--11110

One would expect it after T8295111

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 50: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

176 Aestimatio

Hence both paraphrases must here be drawing from the same sourcenamely Dorotheus112

In the next chapter which is about conjunctions the paraphrasethat started with that misleading attribution to Anubio quotes againfrom Dorotheus first implicitly and then explicitly The implicitinstance occurs in T8310--317

ὁ Κρόνος σὺν ῎Αρει τοῖς ἤθεσι πραεῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἀργοὺς ἐν

ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ ἐν πολλοῖς ἀποτυγχάνοντας νοσερούς τε

καὶ ὑπὸ μελαίνης χολῆς βλαπτομένους εἰ μὴ Ζεύς ποθεν

ἐπιμαρτυρήσῃ ὑπομονητικοὶ δὲ οἱ τοιοῦτοι καὶ βαρύθυμοι

This goes back to Dorotheus as an excerpt from his poem in the im-portant manuscript Vat gr 1056 fol 156 shows The scribe quotesthe following lines with explicit attribution to Dorotheus113

ἢν δ᾿ ἂρ᾿ ᾿Ενυαλίῳ συνέῃ Κρόνος ἤθεα τεῦξε

πρήεα δὴ γὰρ Θοῦρος ἀεὶ σφοδρός τε καὶ ὠκύς

εἰς ὁρμὰς ἄσκεπτον ἀεὶ τάχος ἠδ᾿ ἀλόγιστον

θερμὸς ἐὼν ἤνεγκεν ὁ δὲ βραδύς ἀμφοτέρων δὲ

κιρναμένων μέσσος κείνων βροτὸς ἔσσετ᾿ ἄριστος

εἶτα προστίθησιν ὅτι κωλύσεις ἔργων καὶ χολῆς μελαίνης κίνησιν

ποιεῖ

εἰ μὴ ἂρ᾿ Αἰγίοχος δαμάσει σθένος οὐλοὸν αὐτῶν

The second instance occurs in T8342--353 and it is here that theauthor of our paraphrase quotes for the first time explicitly fromDorotheus This quotation combines two paragraphs from the chap-ter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411--541] after which Obbinkrsquos quo-tation in T8 breaks off and has obvious equivalents in the Arabictranslation of Dorotheus

T8342--347 ~T8432--437 ~DorArab 2292T8347--353 ~T8448--451 ~DorArab 2302

It is clear that the chapter Περὶ τοπικῶν διακρίσεων [T8411-541] isfrom Dorotheus who had this chapter (plus the one on κεντροθεσί-

αι) in the same position after the discussion of the various aspects

Compare also DorArab 21620 lsquohe will be one of those who relies on himself112

and will not obey anotherrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]See Pingree 1976 36825--3696 This text was first published by Heeg [1910a113

125] See also the discussion in Stegemann 1943 116--119

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 51: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 177

as the Arabic translation shows [DorArab 228--33] while Anubioand Firmicus followed the common source in placing the same twochapters before the discussion of the aspects and in presenting afterthe aspects a collection of typical alignments [see Table 1 p 135]

At this point the anonymous author of our paraphrase reachedthe end of the second book of Dorotheus and decided to add be-fore finishing his work the one chapter that he had for some reason(lack of interest) left out previously that is the chapter on κεν-

τροθεσίαι which concerns the planets and the luminaries in the fourcenters [see Pingree 1976 361--367 ~DorArab 221--27] It actuallymade sense to recover this previously skipped chapter because its con-tent is closely related to the τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις [T8411--541 ~DorArab 228--33] Within this last section on κεντροθεσίαι [Pingree1976 361--367] Dorotheus is once more mentioned explicitly as theauthor of two consecutive dactylic hexameters in which a hithertooverlooked emendation is needed [Pingree 1976 36119--22]114 Theparaphrase ends with a remark on the usefulness of all three topicsthat have been discussed

᾿Ιστέον δὲ ὅτι ταῦτα πάντα τὰ εἰρημένα αἱ τοπικαὶ διακρί-

σεις τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ αἱ κεντροθεσίαι καὶ οἱ πρὸς ἀλλήλους

σχηματισμοὶ χρειώδεις εἰσὶν ἐν ταῖς καταρχαῖς κτλ [Pingree1976 36721--23]Altogether it is clear that the scribe had two sources at his

disposal Anubio and Dorotheus In their poems they had both ver-sified (among other things) three sections of their common sourcethat dealt with τοπικαὶ διακρίσεις κεντροθεσίαι and σχηματισμοίThe scribe started from Anubio but very soon switched to Dorotheusfrom whose second book he drew most of the following material Onlyat the end of each chapter does he seem to have checked the corre-sponding passages in Anubio and made rare addenda115

These verses in Pingreersquos edition read ἢν Ζεὺς μὴ λεύσσῃ μιν ἢ αὐτὴ πότνια114

θεία | ἢ δόμον ἢ ὕψος τύχῃ λελαχυῖα Σελήνη Instead of the unmetrical mssreading ὕψος the original must have read ὕψωμα a frequent astrologicalterm that is once attested with certainty in the fragments of Dorotheus [seePingree 1976 3245 αἱ δὲ ταπεινώσεις ὑψώματα ἐν διαμέτρῳ] Besides theseverses see also Pingree 1976 36526 with another (somewhat mutilated)hexameter bearing no explicit attribution to DorotheusSee p 175 on T8305--307115

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 52: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

178 Aestimatio

APPENDIX 3THE NEW GENEVA PAPYRUS

PGen IV 157 was recently edited by Paul Schubert [2009a 2009b]It is F9 in my rearrangement of the fragments of Anubio116 This findincreases the total of preserved verses of this poet by roughly 25adding substantially to our knowledge of his vocabulary The Genevafragment provides further arguments in favor of the views expressedin the first part of the present review article An observation thatneatly ties in with what has been said about F3 on p 131 abovecan be made with regard to PGen IV 157 ii 10--24 These linescorrespond to Firmicus Math 63153--54 However while lines 14--16 and 21--24 of Anubiorsquos version have no counterpart at all in theLatin text Firmicus Math 63154 gives more details than Anubioin lines 19--20 This may again be explained with the assumptionthat both authors drew on a common source [see Table 1 p 135]

With regard to my conjecture [see 132] that Firmicusrsquo ideal horo-scopes in 630--31 are from the first century AD or even earlier itdeserves attention that the description of an imperial horoscope (de-cretum potentissimi imperatoris) in Firmicus Math 63155 [cf PGen IV 157 ii 25--30] is unusually detailed providing a complete setof astronomical data for the luminaries and the five planets Maybethis is not just a fictitious alignment but the birth chart of a histor-ical individual comparable to indisputable cases such as the anony-mously transmitted chart of Emperor Nero in Vettius Valens Antholo-giae 5720--35 The only date within centuries that astronomicallymatches the positions given by Firmicus is 27 (or 28) Sept 96 BC ca4 AM (Alexandria)117

See Table 4c p 187 I am grateful to Paul Schubert for directing my at-116

tention to this new Anubio fragment and for sharing his (at that time still)forthcoming publications with meI realized only after establishing this date that already Holden [1996 74]117

had the same idea However his tentative identification with Ptolemy XIAuletes must be rejected on chronological grounds as pointed out by Huumlbner[2005 15n13] As for the astronomical data 96 BC suits the zodiacal posi-tions perfectly if one takes into account that sidereal longitudes computedby ancient astronomers for the early first century BC would be roughly 7higher than tropical longitudes obtained with modern computer software forthe same period The date in 96 BC is unsatisfactory only with regard tothe additional condition that all five planets be in their own boundaries (et

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 53: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 179

PGen IV 157 ii 1--2 corresponds to FirmicusMath 63151 withthe difference that Anubio speaks of Venus (Κύπρις) symbolizing theἄλοχος (lit lsquopartner of onersquos bedrsquo ie either wife or concubine) whileFirmicus speaks of the Moon (Luna) symbolizing the uxor (legitimatewife) If Firmicus had translated Anubio one would expect lsquoVenusrsquoinstead of lsquoLunarsquo Schubert [2009b 423] in his commentary refers toBoucheacute-Leclercqrsquos remark [1899 449--450] that lsquola planegravete Veacutenus quilaisse agrave la Lune le premier rocircle quand il srsquoagit du mariage leacutegitime lereprend quand il srsquoagit des passions de lrsquoamourrsquo If as argued aboveboth authors drew on a common source this may have spoken of lsquoei-ther Venus or the Moonrsquo with Anubio quoting only the former deityand Firmicus only the latter But on closer inspection another expla-nation seems preferable the German branch of the MSS traditionof Firmicus omits the name of the planet in question which sug-gests that Luna in the other (Italian) branch may be nothing morethan a failed attempt to restore a name (or an astrological symbol)which had been lost in the course of transmission Despite Boucheacute-Leclercqrsquos correct observation above it would not be surprising ifthe common source had spoken of Venus symbolizing the legitimatewife This is clear from Obbinkrsquos F6 ii 30--33mdasha fragment belongingto the same roll as the Geneva papyrus118mdashwhere Venus (Κυθέρεια)indisputably symbolizes the legitimate wife (ἀλόχου) as opposed toa prostitute (πόρνης) The corresponding passage in Firmicus [Math63182] speaks of Venus and matrimonium as opposed to meretricespublicas See also Obbinkrsquos F4 b 12 where Venus (Κυθέρεια) sym-bolizes the ἄλοχος (probably again = lsquowifersquo) while Firmicus in hiscorresponding passage [Math 6306] speaks of Venus and uxor

omnes in suis sint finibus constituti) This detail may have been stylized inan otherwise historical alignment in which as Holden [1996 74] has rightlyobserved already only Mars would taking the 7-shift into account be inhis own boundaries Note that there is reason to suspect another historicalhoroscope behind a closely related passage namely Firmicus Math 6311which Huumlbner [2005] tentatively dates to 23 May 139 BC and identifieswith Sulla The date but not the identification was already ascertained inHolden 1996 73See Schubert 2009a 73 2009b 406118

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 54: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

180 Aestimatio

bibliography

CCAGCatalogus codicum astrologorum graecorumDorotheus Arabus See Pingree 1976 159--322ParAnubltet Dorgt Paraphrasis Anubionis ltet Dorotheigt

AnonymousΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος See Pingree 1976 344--361119

Parlt DorgtParaphrasis ltDorotheigtAnonymousΠερὶ κράσεως καὶ φύσεως τῶν ἀστέρων καὶ τῶν

ἀποτελουμένων καὶ σημαινομένων ἐκ τῆς συμπαρουσίας καὶ

τοῦ σχηματισμοῦ αὐτῶν See Pingree 1986 369--389 (firstedited in Kroll 1900)120

pseudo-Manetho ᾿Αποτελεσματικά See Lopilato 1998PSIPapiri della Societagrave Italiana

Boer E 1962 edHeliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum com-mentarium Interpretationes astronomicas addiderunt ONeuge-bauer et D Pingree Leipzig

Boll F 1902Review of CCAG 2--3 (1900--1901)ByzantinischeZeitschrift 11139--143 Brussels

1908Die Erforschung der antiken Astrologie Neue Jahr--buumlcher fuumlr das klassische Altertum Geschichte und deutscheLitteratur 11103--126Repr in Boll 1950 1--28

1909Firmicus Cols 2365--2379 in Paulys Real-Encyclopauml-die 62 Stuttgart

1914 edPSI III 157 Carminis astrologici Manethonianifragmenta nova Pp 1--4 in Papiri Greci e Latini vol 3 ni 157--279 Pubblicazioni della Societagrave Italiana per la ricerca dei papirigreci e latini in Egitto Florence

This paraphrase is mostly derived from Dorotheus [see Appendix 2 p 173]119

and presents the same material as Firmicus Math 63--27 in the same orderie by aspects Pages 3451--3543 (= T81--307 in Obbink 2006) were firstedited by AOlivieri [1900c 204--212] Pages 3451--36114 were reprintedas T8 in Obbink 2006 and contain F9This paraphrase is basically derived from Dorotheus (with other elements120

from Valens and Ptolemy) and contains F10 in Obbink 2006 Its order (byplanets) differs substantially from Firmicus Math 63--27

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 55: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 181

Boll F 1950Kleine Schriften zur Sternkunde des Altertums VStegemann ed Leipzig

Boucheacute-Leclercq A 1899Lrsquoastrologie grecque Paris Repr Brussels1963 Aalen 1979

Bram JR 1975Firmicus Maternus Ancient Astrology Theory andPracticeMatheseos libri VIII Park Ridge NJ

Cumont F 1921Rhetorii Aegyptii capitula selecta (excerpta excodice Parisino 2425) Pp 115--225 in CCAG 84 Brussels

1929aHephaestionis Thebani capitula selecta ex codiceParis 2417 Pp 141--159 in CCAG 81 Brussels

1929bHermetis Trismegisti methodus mystica excerpta excodice Paris 2419 Pp 172--177 in CCAG 81 Brussels

Feraboli S 1981Sulla μοῖρα ὡροσκοποῦσα (Heph Theb II 2)Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 37157--160

Fischer E 1974Die Ekloge des Phrynichos Sammlung griechischerund lateinischer Grammatiker 1 BerlinNew York

Gundel W and Gundel HG 1966AstrologumenaDie astrolo-gische Literatur in der Antike und ihre Geschichte SudhoffsArchiv 6Wiesbaden

Hagedorn D 1973Der Hiobkommentar des Arianers Julian Patris-tische Studien und Texte 14 BerlinNew York

Heeg J 1910a lsquoDorotheus von Sidon und Firmicus Maternus MathVIrsquoHermes 45315--319

1910bExcerpta ex codice Vaticano 1056 Pp 76--132 inCCAG 53 Brussels

Heilen S 2011Hadriani genituraDie astrologischen Fragmente desAntigonos von Nikaia Edition Uumlbersetzung und Kommentar(forthcoming)

Hermann G 1812 edDraconis Stratonicensis liber de metris poeti-cis Ioannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem Leipzig

Holden JH 1996A History of Horoscopic Astrology From theBabylonian Period to the Modern Age Tempe

Huumlbner W 1984Manilius als Astrologe und Dichter Pp 126--320in HTemporini and WHaase eddAufstieg und Niedergang der

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 56: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

182 Aestimatio

Roumlmischen Welt Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel derneueren Forschung sect 2 vol 321 BerlinNew York

Huumlbner W 1989Die Begriffe bdquoAstrologieldquo und bdquoAstronomieldquo inder AntikeWortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik miteiner Hypothese zum Terminus bdquoQuadriviumldquoWiesbaden

2005 lsquoSullarsquos Horoscope (Firmmath 6311)rsquo Pp 13--35 in GOestmann DRutkin and K von Stuckrad eddHoro-scopes and Public Spheres Essays on the History of AstrologyReligion and Society 42 BerlinNew York

2008 revObbink 2006Gnomon 80682--685Koechly H 1851 edArati phaenomena et prognostica Pseudo-

Manethonis et Maximi carmina astrologica cum fragmentisDorothei et Anubionis Pp 41--101 in Poetae bucolici et didacticiGraece et Latine vol 2 Paris Repr 1931

1858 edManethonis apotelesmaticorum qui feruntur libriVI Accedunt Dorothei et Annubionis fragmenta astrologica Cor-pus poetarum epicorum graecorum 7 Leipzig

Kroll W 1898 lsquoAstrologischesrsquoPhilologus ns 11123--1331900Anonymi de planetis Pp 159--180 in CCAG 2 Brus-

sels1906Excerpta ex Vetti Valentis florilegio (ex codice Vati-

cano 191) Pp 27--129 in CCAG 52 BrusselsKroll W Skutsch F and Ziegler K 1968Firmici Materni Mathe-

seos libri VIII 2 vols Leipzig Repr with addenda of the 1st edn1897--1913

Kuumlhn KG 1821--1833 edClaudii Galeni opera omnia 20 volsLeipzig

Lopilato R 1998 edThe Apotelesmatika of Manetho PhD ThesisBrown UniversityUMI Microform 9830484

Ludwich A 1904 lsquoDas elegische Lehrgedicht des Astrologen Anu-bion und die ManethonianarsquoPhilologus ns 17116--134

Obbink D 1999 lsquoAnoubion Elegiacsrsquo Pp 57--109 (with plates 11--14) in NGonis et alii eddThe Oxyrhynchus Papyri 66 [nos4494--4544] Graeco-Roman Memoirs 86 London

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 57: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 183

Obbink D 2006 edAnubio Carmen astrologicum elegiacumMu-nichLeipzig

Olivieri A 1900aΠερὶ πράξεως καὶ ἐπιτηδεύματος καὶ τεχνῶνPp 190--191 in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900b ῎Ετι περὶ ἐπεμβάσεων ltAnubionisgtPp 202--203in CCAG 2 Brussels

1900cΠερὶ τῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους σχηματισμῶν τῶν ἀστέ-

ρων ἐκ τῶν ᾿Ανουβίωνος Pp 204--212 in CCAG 2 BrusselsPingree D 1973--1974 edHephaestionis Thebani apotelesmatico-

rum libri tres 2 vols Leipzig1976 edDorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum Leipzig

[Edition of the Arabic translation of the Greek original Englishtranslation of the Arabic translation edition of the Greek andLatin fragments]

1977 lsquoAntiochus and RhetoriusrsquoClassical Philology72203--223

1978 ed trans and commThe Yavanajataka ofSphujidhvaja 2 vols Harvard Oriental Series 48 CambridgeMALondon

1986 edVettii Valentis Antiocheni anthologiarum librinovem Leipzig

Rehm B 1965 edDie Pseudoklementinen II Rekognitionen inRufins Uumlbersetzung Die griechischen christlichen Schriftstellerder ersten Jahrhunderte 51 Berlin

Riess E 1891--1893 lsquoNechepsonis et Petosiridis fragmenta magicarsquoPhilologus Suppl 6325--394

1894 lsquoAnnubionrsquo Cols 2321--2322 in Paulys Real-Encyclo-paumldie 12 Stuttgart

1895 lsquoEpikritisches zur Astrologie des Nechepsos undPetosirisrsquoPhilologus ns 8185--189

Roberts CH 1938 edCatalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyriin the John Rylands Library Manchester III Theological andLiterary Texts (Nos 457--551)Manchester

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 58: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

184 Aestimatio

Schubart W 1950Griechische Literarische Papyri Berichte uumlberdie Verhandlungen der Saumlchsischen Akademie der Wissenschaf-ten zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 975 Berlin

Schubert P 2009a ed lsquoPGen IV 157Anoubion de Diospolispoegraveme astrologique en distiques eacuteleacutegiaquesrsquo Pp 73--76 in S Gaf-fino Moeri SGaumlllnouml N Poget and P Schubert eddLes papy-rus de Genegraveve Nos 147--205 Textes litteacuteraires semilitteacuteraireset documentaires Les papyrus de Genegraveve 4Geneva

2009b ed lsquoLe papyrus de Genegraveve inv 268Un nouveaufragment du poegraveme astrologique drsquoAnoubion preacutecurseur deFirmicus Maternusrsquo Pp 399--432 in Comptes Rendus de lrsquoAca-deacutemie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 153

Stegemann V 1943 lsquoDorotheos von Sidon und Firmicus MaternusEin Beitrag zur Bewertung der Quellenexcerpte in den Mathe-seisrsquoHermes 78113--131

Strecker G 1989Die Pseudoklementinen III Konkordanz zu denPseudoklementinen Zweiter Teil Die griechischen christlichenSchriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 60 Berlin

Usener H 1900 lsquoAus Julian von HalikarnassrsquoRheinisches Museumns 55321--340

Weinstock S 1952 lsquoA New Anubio FragmentrsquoChronique drsquoEacutegypte27210--217

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 59: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 185

TABLE 4REARRANGEMENT OF THE PRESERVED CITATIONS OF ANUBIO

[see p 172]

General testimonia on Anubio and his poem

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T1 T1 pseud-ClemHom 46

bull

T2 T2 Rufinus Rec10522--3

bull

T3 FirmMath 3pr4--312

Refers to Anubis (thegod) not Anubioe

T3 T4 Hermann 18123315--18

bull

T4 T5 Hermann 18125326--548

bull

T5 T6 Heph Apote-lesm 2211

bull Introduces F2

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee See p 140

Table 4a

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 60: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

186 Aestimatio

Specific testimonia on the topics treated by Anubio

Ha Ob Source AMc ITd Notes

T6 F13 Heph Epit4214--7

bull How to determine theascendent when thehour is unknown (para-phrases F2)

T7 F12 Heph Epit4234

bull On which of the par-ents will die first

T8 T8 ParAnubltetDorgt

bulle bull On the various aspectsand the seven planetswhen in each otherrsquoshouses and terms

T9 F11 Firm Math 63--31

bull On the various aspectsplus a collection of typ-ical charts

T10 F221--2 Hagedorn 19732553--4

bull Mars in trine aspectwith Venus [= Firmi-cus Math 653]

T11 T9 + F14 Rufinus Rec1094--7

Venus in conjunctionwith Jupiter vs Venusin conjunction withMars [= FirmicusMath 6235 + 6242]

T12 T7 Rhetorius5826--7Epit4278--9

bull On the profession andbusiness [cf PtolemyTetr 44]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c AM = Anubio mentionedd IT = Indirect testimonium that is a testimonium in which the author drawsnot on Anubio but on Anubiorsquos sourcee Mostly derived from Dorotheus despite the initial attribution to AnubioSee p 134

Table 4b

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 61: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 187

Fragmenta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F1 F1 POxy 664503r bull bull 211241244--6

12 zodiacal signs36 decans 108subordinatedeities (λειτουρ-

γοί liturgi)F2 F2 HephApotelesm

2211--15bull bull determining the

ascendent atbirth

F3 F223--4 Hagedorn 19732555--6

bull bullg luminaries (andplanets) at thecenters (κεντρο-

θεσίαι)F4 F2211-15 Hagedorn 1973

2602--6bull bull planets in each

otherrsquos housesand terms (τοπι-

καὶ διακρίσεις)F5 F226--9 Hagedorn 1973

2558--11bull bull

F2161--62 ps-Manetho1[5]89--91h

(bull) (bull) (61516--17) on aspects (espoppositions)

F2182--86 ps-Manetho1[5]341--345i

(bull) (bull) (6293-4)

F6 F3 POxy 664504 bull bull 62923--305

F2167--70 ps-Manetho1[5]122 124 124b128 j

(bull) (bull) (6305)

typical chartsF7 F4 POxy 664503v bull bull 6306--7F8 F5 POxy 664505 bull bull 63020--22

F9 PGen IV 157 bull bull 63151--55F10 F6 P Schub 15 bull bull 63178--86

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic meter e Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31 f Other reasons g On F22 see p 169 h On F2161--62 see p 189i On F2182--86 see p 189 j On F2167--70 see p 189

Table 4c

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 62: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

188 Aestimatio

Fragmenta loci incerti

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F11 F7 Rhetorius 5822Epit 4272

bull bull on the professionbusiness (περὶ

πράξεως καὶ ἐπι-

τηδεύματος)F12 F8 Olivieri 1900a

2033--36bull bullg on arrival in

places (περὶ ἐπ-

εμβάσεων derevolutionibusnativitatum)

F9 + F10 h

F11 [= T9 ]F12 [= T7 ]F13 [= T6 ]F14 [= T11 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasons g On F8 see p 152h From Dorotheus to be omitted On F9 and F10 see pp 153--156

Table 4d

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 63: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 189

Fragmenta incerta

Ha Ob SourceAttribution Firmicus

TopicAc Bd Ce Df Math

F13 F15 POxy 3464 bull mixed predictionsconcerning chil-dren

F14 F16 PSI 3157 bull 3423g on Mars in theeighth place ofthe dodecatropos

F15 F17 PRyl 3488 bull (unclear)F16 F18 P Schub 16 bull (unclear)F17 F19 POxy 664506 bull (unclear)F18 F20 POxy 664507 bull (unclear)F19 F21 verses from ps-

Manetho 1[5]hbull (various)

F20 verses fromps-Manethoi

1[5]168--169336 5[6]292

bull (various)

F22 [=T10 +F3--F5 ]

a H = Heilen b O = Obbink c Explicit attribution to Anubio in contextd Astrological content in elegaic metere Parallels in Firmicus Math 63--31f Other reasonsg Other passages in PSI 3157 equal Firmicus Math 3530 3629 and 461but they are composed in stichic hexameters not in elegaic distichsh For F2161--62 F2167--70 and F2182--86 compare the entires before andafter Obblinkrsquos F3 in Table 4ci See comments on F21 p 164

Table 4e

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 64: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

190 Aestimatio

TABLE 5ADDITONAL FRAGMENTS OF DOROTHEUS OF SIDON

[see Appendix 1 p 173]

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Trine aspects1 ἄλλοι δ᾿

αἰθερίων

ἄστρων ἐπι-

ΐστορές

εἰσιν

[F102]

3815 21412a 644--5

2 λέχος

εὔνυμφον

3846--7 21418 653

Square aspects3 αὐτοὺς δ᾿

ἑτέροισι

προσώποις

37521 21510 6913

4 ἔσσεται 34812 21512 69155 πταίσματα

γὰρ πάμ-

πολλα φέρει

38333--3841

21523 6112

6 quoted onp 174

cf 34933--3503

Rhetorius5115

21528 6119

7 ἀστείους

τέχνης

εἰδήμονας

3879 21533 6131

a See further Stegemann 1943 126--127 which provides a synoptic table thatincludes also a German translation of an Arabic excerpt (a different Arabicprose version of Dorotheusrsquo chapters on aspects which was omitted by Pingree)from MS Leiden or 891 fol 1--27 at fol 2 lsquoUnd zu ihnen gehoumlrt der der dieWissenschaft von der Berechnung der Gestirne unterstuumltztrsquo

Table 5a

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 65: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

STEPHAN HEILEN 191

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Oppositions8 ἐκ μόχθων

μόχθους

3744 2163 6155

9 βυσσοδομεύων 38030 lacuna 616410 βίος ἄρκιος

ἔσltσεgtται

αὐτῷ [F91]

35228--29 lacuna 6165

11 ἤθεσιν

ὁρμητήν

τε καὶ οὐκ

εἴκοντά περ

ἄλλῳ [F94]

3536 21620 6168

12 πίστιν

ἀποστέρ-

γουσι

δικαίωνb

[F105]

38426--27 cf 35317 21625 6174

b lsquoThey rejectbetray the trust that just men put into themrsquo Note thatinstead of δικαίων ParAnubltet Dorgt reads δικαίαν [T8288 = Pingree1976 35317] Cf eg pseudo-Clement Hom 9213 (and later authors) τὴν

δικαίαν πίστιν The non-Greek parallels of our fragment are Firmicus Math6174 religiosa fidei commercia polluentes and DorArab 21625 lsquohe will runaway from the discharge of [his] trustrsquo [trans Pingree 1976 220]

Table 5b

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber
Page 66: prd Aestimatio vol-07 - IRCPS · 128 Aestimatio texts available ... Skutsch, and Ziegler 1968, 2.71]. Dorotheus was editedbyPingree[1976]. 15 Forfullreferencestotheavailableeditionsofthesetexts

192 Aestimatio

Source ParallelsText ParltDorgt ParAnub Other DorArab Firm

ltet Dorgt Sources Math

Conjunctions13 quoted on

p 17637028c cf 3546--

12Dorotheus[Pingree197636825--3696]

2182--3

6224--5228

14 βαρυδαίμονες

ὄντες

37113 2185 62211

15 ἀνάξια λέ-

κτρα γυ-

ναικῶν

37121 2187 62212

16 καί κεν

ἀμαυρώ-

σειε τύχην

καὶ μείονα

θείῃ [F101]

37925 21911 6237

17 ψεύστας

μέν συν-

ετοὺς δὲ

καὶ ndash˘ ˘ ndashπολυπείρους

38312 21916 6245

18 ῾θερμόν τε

καὶ οὐ δύσ-

τευκτον

ἔθηκε

38321 (21923)d 6249

19 μηχανικῆς

πολύπειρος

38829--30 21930 6272

c These lines preserve only the last hexameter d The relevant detail is omitted

Table 5c

  • Montelle and Clark
  • Schechner
  • Mittenhuber

Carmen Astrologicum I - Dorotheus

Carmen Astrologicum I - Dorotheus

AESTIMATIO, THE IEB INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FINANCE …

AESTIMATIO, THE IEB INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FINANCE …

AESTIMATIO, THE IEB INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FINANCE … · system in the Republic of Moldova Clichici, Dorina ... AESTIMATIO,THE IEB INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FINANCE,2015.10:88-109

AESTIMATIO, THE IEB INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FINANCE … · system in the Republic of Moldova Clichici, Dorina ... AESTIMATIO,THE IEB INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FINANCE,2015.10:88-109

AESTIMATIO, THE IEB INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL … … · markets — problems appropriately described as sinking, fast and slow. Keywords: Beta, downside risk, volatility, ... think about

AESTIMATIO, THE IEB INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL … … · markets — problems appropriately described as sinking, fast and slow. Keywords: Beta, downside risk, volatility, ... think about

MIT 2.71/2.710 Optics 11/10/04 wk10-b-1

MIT 2.71/2.710 Optics 11/10/04 wk10-b-1

AESTIMATIO, THE IEB INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FINANCE 9 …

AESTIMATIO, THE IEB INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FINANCE 9 …

Mysticism - With a Translation of the Mystical Theology of Dionysius, And of the Letters to Caius and Dorotheus - Sharpe (1910)

Mysticism - With a Translation of the Mystical Theology of Dionysius, And of the Letters to Caius and Dorotheus - Sharpe (1910)

Chapter 8_Solar (2.71 MB) - World Energy Council

Chapter 8_Solar (2.71 MB) - World Energy Council

For the information of shareholders/investors, we are ......4.55 7.31 2.71 19.08 2.71 8.59 (;:ot annualised) (rat annualised) (not annualised) [annuaUsed) (not NOTES:-1) The above

For the information of shareholders/investors, we are ......4.55 7.31 2.71 19.08 2.71 8.59 (;:ot annualised) (rat annualised) (not annualised) [annuaUsed) (not NOTES:-1) The above

2.71/2.710 Optics MIT 2.71/2.710 9/5/01 wk1-b-1 Units: 3-0-9, Prerequisites: 8.02, 18.03 2.71: meets the Department Elective requirement 2.710: H-Level,

2.71/2.710 Optics MIT 2.71/2.710 9/5/01 wk1-b-1 Units: 3-0-9, Prerequisites: 8.02, 18.03 2.71: meets the Department Elective requirement 2.710: H-Level,

3 2011 aestimatio, the ieb international journal of ...

3 2011 aestimatio, the ieb international journal of ...

Carmen Astrologicum of Dorotheus Translated by David Pingree

Carmen Astrologicum of Dorotheus Translated by David Pingree

An Overview of the User interface for Blender 2.71

An Overview of the User interface for Blender 2.71

MIT 2.71/2.710 Review Lecture p- 1 Optics Overview.

MIT 2.71/2.710 Review Lecture p- 1 Optics Overview.

43546090 Dorotheus Orpheus Pseudo Valens Teachings on Transits

43546090 Dorotheus Orpheus Pseudo Valens Teachings on Transits

4 2012 aestimatio, the ieb international journal of ... · PDF filethe ieb international journal of finance,2012. 4: ... aestimatio, the ieb international journal of finance ... to

4 2012 aestimatio, the ieb international journal of ... · PDF filethe ieb international journal of finance,2012. 4: ... aestimatio, the ieb international journal of finance ... to

MIT 2.71/2.710 Optics 11/24/04 wk12-b-1 Today Resolution Wavefront modulation.

MIT 2.71/2.710 Optics 11/24/04 wk12-b-1 Today Resolution Wavefront modulation.

MIT 2.71/2.710 09/08/04 wk1-b-1 2.71/2.710 Optics.

MIT 2.71/2.710 09/08/04 wk1-b-1 2.71/2.710 Optics.

2.71 ACRES - COMMERCIAL LAND VALLEY CENTER, …images4.loopnet.com/d2/fY16BCRP9C65he7v4...2.71 ACRES - COMMERCIAL LAND VALLEY CENTER, CALIFORNIA 92082 FOR SALE made to the County by

2.71 ACRES - COMMERCIAL LAND VALLEY CENTER, …images4.loopnet.com/d2/fY16BCRP9C65he7v4...2.71 ACRES - COMMERCIAL LAND VALLEY CENTER, CALIFORNIA 92082 FOR SALE made to the County by

PROVINCIAE MEXICANAE - Society of Jesus · PROVINCIAE MEXICANAE SOCIETATIS JESV INEVNTE ANNO MDCCCLXXXVIII. ... Dorotheus Zarranz, Schol. Thomas Argüelles, Josephus Oar, Coad. P.

PROVINCIAE MEXICANAE - Society of Jesus · PROVINCIAE MEXICANAE SOCIETATIS JESV INEVNTE ANNO MDCCCLXXXVIII. ... Dorotheus Zarranz, Schol. Thomas Argüelles, Josephus Oar, Coad. P.