Bibliographie
Libraries
BA = Biblioteca Angelica, Rome.
BAN = Российская Академия Наук. Библиотека, St. Petersburg.
BAV = Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City.
BML = Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence.
BN = Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III, Naples.
BnF = Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris.
BNM = Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Venice.
ÖNB = Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna.
Manuscripts
A = Roma, Biblioteca Angelica, gr. 29 [diktyon 55936].
G = Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, grec 2507 [diktyon 52139].
I = Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 28.13 [diktyon 16194].
L = Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Plut. 28.34 [diktyon 16215].
M = Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Marc. gr. Z. 334 (coll. 553) [diktyon 69805].
P = Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, grec 1670 [diktyon 51293].
Pa = Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, supplément grec 1241 [diktyon 53905].
Pe = St. Petersburg, BAN, иностранных рукописей O N° 128 (= Granstrem 621) [diktyon 56834].
T = Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 212 [diktyon 66843].
V = Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1056 [diktyon 67687].
Va = Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. gr. 1038 [diktyon 67669].
W = Wien, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, phil. gr. 115 [diktyon 71229].
Primary sources
Boer 1958 = E. Boer (ed.), Paulus Alexandrinus, ΕΙΣΑΓΩΓΙΚΑ, Leipzig, 1958.
Boer 1962 = E. Boer (ed.), Heliodori ut dicitur in Paulum Alexandrinum Commentarium, Leipzig, 1962.
Boll – Boer [1940] 1957 = F. Boll, E. Boer (eds), Claudii Ptolemaei Opera quae exstant omnia. Volumen III 1: ΑΠΟΤΕΛΕΣΜΑΤΙΚΑ, Leipzig, [1940] 1957.
Burnett – Yamamoto – Yano 2004 = Ch. Burnett, K. Yamamoto, M. Yano (eds), Al-Qabīṣī (Alcabitius), The Introduction to astrology. Editions of the Arabic and Latin texts and a English translation, London-Turin, 2004.
de Boor 1883 = C. de Boor (ed.), Theophanis Chronographia, Leipzig, 1883.
Hübner 1998 = W. Hübner (ed.), Claudii Ptolemaei Opera quae exstant omnia. Volumen III 1: ΑΠΟΤΕΛΕΣΜΑΤΙΚΑ, post F. Boll et Æ. Boer secundis curis, Stuttgart-Leipzig, 1998.
Karaǧī 1940 = ʾAbū Bakr al-Karaǧī, Kitāb ʾanbāṭ al-miyāh al-ḫafiyyah, Ḥaydarābād, 1359 [Treatise on the extraction of hidden waters].
Kühn 1830 = C.G. Kühn (ed.), Claudii Galeni Opera omnia, XIX, Leipzig, 1830.
Paton 1918 = W.R. Paton (ed.), The Greek Anthology with an English translation, V, London-New York, 1918.
Pingree 1968 = D. Pingree (ed.), Albumasaris De revolutionibus nativitatum, Leipzig, 1968.
Pingree 1973 = D. Pingree (ed.), Hephaestionis Thebani Apotelesmaticorum libri tres, Leipzig, 1973.
Pingree 1974 = D. Pingree (ed.), Hephaestionis Thebani Apotelesmaticorum epitomae quattuor, Leipzig, 1974.
Pingree 1976 = D. Pingree (ed.), Dorothei Sidonii Carmen astrologicum. Interpretationem Arabicam in linguam Anglicam versam una cum Dorothei fragmentis et Graecis et Latinis, Leipzig, 1976.
Pingree 1986 = D. Pingree (ed.), Vettii Valentis Antiocheni Anthologiarum libri novem, Leipzig, 1986.
Radici Colace 1988 = P. Radici Colace, Le parafrasi bizantine del Περὶ Καταρχῶν di Massimo, Messina, 1988.
Robbins 1940 = F.E. Robbins (ed.), Ptolemy Tetrabiblos: edited and translated into English, Cambridge, MA, 1940.
Rovati 2018 = E. Rovati, Die «Iatromathematika» des Hermes Trismegistos: Einleitung, Edition, Übersetzung, in Technai: an international journal for ancient science and technology, 9, 2018, p. 9-132.
Stegemann 1939 = V. Stegemann, Die Fragmente des Dorotheos von Sidon, Heidelberg, 1939.
Vuillemin-Diem – Steel 2015 = G. Vuillemin-Diem, C. Steel (eds), Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos in the translation of William of Moerbeke. Claudii Ptolemaei Liber iudicialium, with the assistance of P. De Leemans, Leuven, 2015.
Wolf 1559 = H. Wolf, In Claudii Ptolemaei Quadripartitum enarrator ignoti nominis, quem tamen Proclum fuisse quidam existimant, Basileae ex officina Petriana, 1559.
Yamamoto – Burnett 2019 = K. Yamamoto, Ch. Burnett (eds), The Great introduction to astrology by Abū Maʿšar, Leiden-Boston, 2019.
Yano 1997 = M. Yano (ed.), Kūšyār ibn Labbān’s Introduction to astrology, Tokyo, 1997.
Secondary sources
Acerbi – Di Mambro 2023 = F. Acerbi, S. Di Mambro, Barlaam’s refutation of the chapters added to Ptolemy’s Harmonics. A critical edition, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 73, 2023, p. 1-56.
Acerbi – Gioffreda 2019 = F. Acerbi, A. Gioffreda, Manoscritti scientifici della prima età paleologa in scrittura arcaizzante, in Scripta, 12, 2019, p. 9-52.
Acerbi – Trizio 2022 = F. Acerbi, M. Trizio, Uprooting Byzantium. Ninth-century Byzantine books and the Graeco-Arabic translation movement, in Scandinavian Journal of Byzantine and Modern Greek studies, 8, 2022, p. 105-154.
Acerbi 2019 = F. Acerbi, Byzantine Rechenbücher: an overview with an edition of Anonymi J and L, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik, 69, 2019, p. 1-57.
Acerbi 2020 = F. Acerbi, Topographie du Vat. gr. 1594, in D. Bianconi, F. Ronconi (eds), La « collection philosophique » face à l’histoire : péripéties et tradition, Spoleto, 2020, p. 239-321.
Acerbi 2021 = F. Acerbi, Struttura e concezione del vademecum computazionale Par. gr. 1670, in Segno e Testo, 19, 2021, p. 167-255.
Acerbi 2023 = F. Acerbi, Editing technical texts: lessons from Greek and Byzantine textual traditions, in The Vatican Library review, 2, 2023, p. 121-144.
Alberti 1979 = G.B. Alberti, Problemi di critica testuale, Florence, 1979.
Andréadès 1924 = A. Andréadès, De la monnaie et de la puissance d’achat des métaux précieux dans l’Empire byzantin, in Byzantion : revue internationale des études byzantines, 1, 1924, p. 75-115.
Bardi 2021 = A. Bardi, Hybrid knowledge and the historiography of science: rethinking the history of astronomy between second-century CE Alexandria, ninth-century Baghdad, and fourteenth-century Constantinople, in Transversal: International journal for the historiography of science, 11, 2021, p. 1-13.
Bardi 2023 = A. Bardi, The relationships between scientific and theological discourses at the crossroads between medieval and early modern times and the historiography of science: a case study from fourteenth-century Byzantium, in Transversal: International journal for the historiography of science, 15, 2023, p. 1-15.
Bezza 2002 = G. Bezza, Il trattato sulle natività di Eleuterio Zebeleno di Elis, in MHNH. Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas, 2, 2002, p. 257-300.
Bezza 2005 = G. Bezza, Per un lessico astrologico: glossario dei termini tecnici dell’“Isagoge” di Paolo d’Alessandria, in MHNH. Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas, 5, 2005, p. 277-305.
Bianconi 2010 = D. Bianconi, Età comnena e cultura scritta. Materiali e considerazioni alle origini di una ricerca, in A. Bravo García, I. Pérez Martín (eds), Proceedings of the seventh international colloquium of Greek palaeography, Madrid-Salamanca, 15-20 September 2008, Turnhout, 2010, p. 75-96.
Biot 1896 = J.-B. Biot, Mémoire sur divers points d’astronomie ancienne, et en particulier sur la période Sothiaque comprenant 1460 années juliennes, Paris, 1896.
Boll 1899a = F. Boll, Beiträge zur Überlieferungsgeschichte der griechischen Astrologie und Astronomie, in Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Philologische und Historische Klasse, 1-3, 1899, p. 77-140.
Boll 1899b = F. Boll, Die Verbannung des Photios, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 8/1, 1899, p. 158.
Boll 1912 = F. Boll, Eine arabisch-byzantinische Quelle des Dialogs Hermippos, in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 18, 1912, p. 3-28.
Bosworth 1993 = C. E. Bosworth, s.v. al-Muʿtaṣim Bi’llāh, in The encyclopedia of Islam: new edition, vol. 7, 1993, p. 776.
Bouché-Leclerq 1899 = A. Bouché-Leclerq, L’astrologie grecque, Paris, 1899.
Caballero Sánchez 2013a = R. Caballero Sánchez, Historia del texto del Comentario anónimo al Tetrabiblos de Tolomeo, in MHNH. Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas, 13, 2013, p. 77-198.
Caballero Sánchez 2013b = R. Caballero Sánchez, El Comentario anónimo al Tetrabiblos de Tolomeo. Edición crítica y traducción castellana de los escolios metodológicos del libro I (in Ptol. Tetr. 1.1.1-1.3.1), in MHNH. Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas, 13, 2013, p. 221-258.
Caballero Sánchez 2018 = R. Caballero Sánchez, Sobre los signos que indican los deseos amorosos: problemas de autoría en torno a un texto astrológico transmitido en el Comentario Anónimo al Tetrabiblos de Tolomeo, in MINERVA. Revista de filología clásica, 31, 2018, p. 133-158.
Caballero Sánchez 2020 = R. Caballero Sánchez, Heliodoro de Alejandría y el Comentario Anónimo al Tetrabiblos de Tolomeo, in Humanitas. Revista do Instituto de estudos clássicos, 76, 2020, p. 33-56.
Caballero Sánchez 2021 = R. Caballero Sánchez, On the chronology of the Anonymous Commentary to Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos: analysis of the astronomical evidence, in Journal for the history of astronomy, 52, 2021, p. 442-461.
Caballero Sánchez 2022 = R. Caballero Sánchez, The horoscopes of the Anonymous Commentary on Ptolemy’s ‘Tetrabiblos’, in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 85, 2022, p. 1-23.
Caluori 2018 = D. Caluori, Olympiodor, §161, in Ch. Riedweg, Ch. Horn, D. Wyrwa (eds), Philosophie der Kaiserzeit und der Spätantike, Basel, 2018, p. 2051-2059.
Canart 1970 = P. Canart, Codices Vaticani Graeci. Codices 1745-1962. Tomus I, Codicum enarrationes, Vatican City, 1970.
Caudano 2012 = A.L. Caudano, An astrological handbook from the reign of Manuel I Komnenos, in Almagest, 3/2, 2012, p. 47-65.
Caudano 2021 = A.L. Caudano, Astrological practices in the handbooks of the Komnenoi period: between tradition and innovations, in M. Grünbart (ed.), Unterstützung bei herrscherlichem Entscheiden. Experten und ihr Wissen in transkultureller und komparativer Perspektive, Göttingen, 2021, p. 40-55.
Cavallo 2000 = G. Cavallo, Scritture informali, cambio grafico e pratiche librarie a Bisanzio tra i secoli XI e XII, in G. Prato (ed.), I manoscritti greci tra riflessione e dibattito, Atti del V Colloquio Internazionale di Paleografia greca, Cremona, 4-10 ottobre 1998, Florence, 2000, I, p. 219-238, III, p. 149-178.
CCAG = F. Boll et al., Catalogus codicum astrologorum graecorum, 12 vols, Brussels, 1898-1953.
Christides 1969 = V. Christides, Arabs as “barbaroi”, before the rise of Islam, in Balkan Studies, 10, 1969, p. 315-324.
Christides 1972 = V. Christides, The names ἄραβες, σαρακηνοί, etc. and their false byzantine etymologies, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 65/2, 1972, p. 329-333.
Cronier – Guardasole – Pietrobelli 2023 = M. Cronier, A. Guardasole, A. Pietrobelli (eds), De Bagdad à Constantinople : le transfert des savoirs médicaux (XIe-XIVe s.), Actes du colloque international de Reims, 24-25 mai 2018, Leuven-Paris-Bristol, CT, 2023.
Csorba – Veszprémy 2020 [2022] = Z. Csorba, M. Veszprémy, The dating of Albumasar in Sadan, in MHNH. Revista internacional de investigación sobre magia y astrología antiguas, 20, 2020 [2022], p. 79-92.
De Montfaucon 1708 = B. de Montfaucon, Palaeographia Graeca, Paris, 1708.
Denningmann 2005 = S. Denningmann, Die astrologische Lehre der Doryphorie. Eine soziomorphe Metapher in der antiken Planetenastrologie, Munich, 2005.
Denningmann 2007 = S. Denningmann, The ambiguous terms ἑῴα and ἑσπερία, ἀνατολή, and ἑῴα and ἑσπερία δύσις, in Culture and Cosmos, 11/1-2, 2007, p. 189-210.
Dorandi 2000 = T. Dorandi, Review to Hübner 1998, in The Classical Review, n.s. 50/1, 2000, p. 30-32.
Dunlop 1971 = D.M. Dunlop, The Mudhākarāt fī ‘ilm an-nujūm (Dialogues on astrology) attributed to Abū Ma‘shar al-Balkhī (Albumasar), in C.E. Bosworth (ed.), Iran and Islam. In memory of the late Vladimir Minorsky, Edinburgh, 1971, p. 229-246.
Dykes – Gramaglia 2017 = B. Dykes, E. Gramaglia (eds), Astrological Works of Theophilus of Edessa, Minneapolis, MN, 2017.
Farina 2022a = L. Farina, A review of John Abramios’ profile, in Byzantion : revue internationale des études byzantines, 92, 2022, p. 205-249.
Farina 2022b = L. Farina, The Greek fragments of the works of Māšāʾallāh ibn Aṯarī, in Mediterranea. International journal on the transfer of knowledge, 7, 2022, p. 225-279.
Farina 2023 = L. Farina, Staring at the stars in Palaiologan Constantinople: the case of the Methodus inveniendi horoscopi by Demetrios Chloros, in La Parola del passato, 68/1, 2023, p. 81-116.
Federici Vescovini 1998 = G. Federici Vescovini, La versio latina degli “Excerpta de Secretis Albumasar di Sadan”: una edizione, in Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge, 65, 1998, p. 273-330.
Frolow 1949 = A. Frolow, Les noms des monnaies dans le Typicon du Pantocrator, in Byzantinoslavica, 10, 1949, p. 241-253.
Gacek 2001 = A. Gacek, The Arabic manuscript tradition: a glossary of technical terms and bibliography, Leiden, 2001.
Gastgeber 2020 = Ch. Gastgeber, Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq und seine griechischen Handschriften, in A. Binggeli, M. Cassin, M. Detoraki (eds), Bibliothèques grecques dans l’Empire ottoman, Turnhout, 2020, p. 145-181.
Gioffreda 2020 = A. Gioffreda, Tra i libri di Isacco Argiro, Berlin-Boston, 2020.
Glynias – Chitwood – Pahlitzsch 2022 = J. Glynias, Z. Chitwood, J. Pahlitzsch, Laying a framework for Arabo-Greek studies: the translation of Arabic scientific texts into Greek between the ninth and fifteenth Centuries, in Mediterranea. International journal on the transfer of knowledge, 7, 2022, p. 137-142.
Glynias 2022 = J. Glynias, Reconstructing middle Byzantine Arabo-Greek astrology from later Greek manuscripts, in Mediterranea. International journal on the transfer of knowledge, 7, 2022, p. 183-224.
Greenbaum – Ross 2010 = D.G. Greenbaum, M.T. Ross, The role of Egypt in the development of the horoscope, in L. Bareš, F. Coppens, K. Smoláriková (eds), Egypt in transition: social and religious development of Egypt in the first millennium BCE, Proceedings of an international conference, Prague, September 1-4, 2009, Prague, 2010, p. 146-182.
Greenbaum 2012 = D.G. Greenbaum, Paulus of Alexandria, in R.S. Bagnall, K. Brodersen, C.B. Champion, A. Erskine, S.R. Huebner (eds), The encyclopaedia of ancient history, IX, Malden, MA, 2012, p. 5111-5112.
Gutas 1998 = D. Gutas, Greek thought, Arabic culture: the Graeco-Arabic translation movement in Baghdad and early ‘Abbāsid society (2nd-4th/8th-10th centuries), London, 1998.
Gutas 2012 = D. Gutas, Arabic into Byzantine Greek: Introducing a survey of the translations, in A. Speer, Ph. Steinkrüger (eds), Knotenpunkt Byzanz: Wissensformen und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen, Berlin-Boston, 2012, p. 246-262.
Heilen 2010a = S. Heilen, Problems in translating Ancient Greek astrological texts, in A. Imhausen, T. Pommerening (eds), Writings of early scholars in the Ancient Near East, Egypt, Rome, and Greece, Berlin-New York, 2010, p. 299-329.
Heilen 2010b = S. Heilen, Ptolemy’s doctrine of the terms and its reception, in A. Jones (ed.) Ptolemy in perspective: use and criticism of his work from antiquity to the nineteenth century, Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London, 2010, p. 45-93.
Heilen 2015 = S. Heilen, Hadriani genitura: die astrologischen Fragmente des Antigonos von Nikaia, Berlin-Boston, 2015.
Heilen 2016 = S. Heilen, Translating Greco-Roman astrological texts: the horoscope of Hadrian by Antigonus of Nicaea, in A. Imhausen, T. Pommerening (eds), Translating writings of early scholars in the ancient Near East, Egypt, Greece and Rome: methodological aspects with examples, Berlin-Boston, 2016, p. 507-569.
Heilen 2020 = S. Heilen, Konjunktionsprognostik in der frühen Neuzeit, Band 1. Die Antichrist-Prognose des Johannes von Lübeck (1474) zur Saturn-Jupiter Konjunktion von 1504 und ihre frühneuzeitliche Rezeption, Baden-Baden, 2020.
Hendy 1969 = M.F. Hendy, Coinage and money in the Byzantine empire 1081-1261, Washington, DC, 1969.
Honigmann 1929 = E. Honigmann, Die sieben Klimata und die ΠΟΛΕΙΣ ΕΠΙΣΗΜΟΙ: Eine Untersuchung zur Geschichte der Geographie und Astrologie im Altertum und Mittelalter, Heidelberg, 1929.
Hoyland 2011 = R.G. Hoyland (ed.), Theophilus of Edessa’s Chronicle and the circulation of historical knowledge in Late Antiquity and early Islam, Liverpool, 2011.
Hübner 1982 = W. Hübner, Die Eigenschaften der Tierkreiszeichen in der Antike. Ihre Darstellung und Verwendung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Manilius, Wiesbaden, 1982.
Hübner 1989 = W. Hübner, Die Begriffe “Astrologie” und “Astronomie” in der Antike. Wortgeschichte und Wissenschaftssystematik, mit einer Hypothese zum Terminus “Quadrivium”, Wiesbaden, 1989.
Hübner 1995 = W. Hübner, Die Dodecatropos des Manilius, Stuttgart, 1995.
Hunger 1961 = H. Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek 1: codices historici, codices philosophici et philologici, Vienna, 1961.
Jones 1987 = A. Jones, An eleventh-century manual of Arabo-Byzantine astronomy, Amsterdam, 1987.
Jürss 1966 = F. Jürss, Johannes Katrarios und der Dialog Hermippos oder über die Astrologie, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 59/2, 1966, p. 275-284.
Kaldellis 2022 = A. Kaldellis, Translations into Greek in the Byzantine period, in D. Gutas, Why translate science? Documents from antiquity to the sixteenth century in the historical West (Bactria to the Atlantic), Leiden, 2022, p. 397-444.
Karabaceck 1887 = J. von Karabaceck, Das arabische Papier, in Mitteilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, Vienna, 1887, p. 87-178.
Kunitzsch 1964 = P. Kunitzsch, Das Fixsternverzeichnis in der “Persischen Syntaxis” des Georgios Chrysokokkes, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 57/2, 1964, p. 382-411.
Ladynin 2019 = И. А Ладынин, Еще раз о летосчислении “от Менофриса” (К истории научной проблемы и поиску ее решения) [Once again on the time-reckoning “after Menophris” (A history of a scholarly problem and a search of its solution)], in Вестник древней истории, 79/2, 2019, p. 245-265.
Lambeck 1679 = P. Lambeck, Commentariorum de augustissima Bibliotheca Caesarea Vindobonensi liber septimus, Vienna, 1679.
László 2020 = L. László, Julianus of Laodicea and his astrological fragments, in Mnemosyne, 75/2, 2020, p. 1-20.
László 2022 = L. László, The inceptions of the Emperor Zeno’s anonymous astrologer, PhD Thesis, Budapest, 2022.
Lefort et al. 2019 = J. Lefort (eds), Actes de Vatopédi, III, de 1377 à 1500, Paris-Leuven, 2019.
Lepsius 1858 = C.R. Lepsius, Königsbuch der alten Ägypter, Berlin, 1858.
Lightfoot 2021 = J.L. Lightfoot, Pseudo-Manetho, Apotelesmatica. Books two, three, and six: edited with introduction, translation, and commentary, Oxford, 2021.
Lightfoot 2023 = J.L. Lightfoot, Pseudo-Manetho, Apotelesmatica. Books four, one, and five: edited with introduction, translation, and commentary, Oxford, 2023.
LSJ = H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, H.S. Jones, Greek-English lexicon, Oxford, 2011.
Łukaszewicz 1995 = A. Łukaszewicz, Menophres reconsidered, in Journal of Juristic Papyrology, 25, 1995, p. 99-108.
Magdalino 2003 = P. Magdalino, The porphyrogenita and the astrologers, a commentary on Alexiad VI.7.1-7, in Ch. Dendrinos et al. (eds), Porphyrogenita: essays on the history and literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in honour of Julian Chrysostomides, Aldershot, 2003, p. 15-31.
Magdalino 2006 = P. Magdalino, L’orthodoxie des astrologues : la science entre le dogme et la divination à Byzance (VIIe-XIVe siècle), Paris, 2006.
Magdalino 2021 = P. Magdalino, Astrology at the court of Manuel I Komnenos (1143-1180), in M. Grünbart (ed.), Unterstützung bei herrscherlichem Entscheiden. Experten und ihr Wissen in transkultureller und komparativer Perspektive, Göttingen, 2021, p. 160-170.
Manfredi – Potenza 2022 = A. Manfredi, F. Potenza, I codici greci di Niccolò V: edizione dell’inventario del 1455 e identificazione dei manoscritti, Vatican City, 2022.
Martelli 2016 = M. Martelli, s.v. Stéphanos, in R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, VI, Paris, 2016, p. 557-563.
Mavroudi 2002 = M. Mavroudi, A Byzantine book on dream interpretation. The Oneirocriticon of Achmet and its Arabic sources, Leiden-Boston-Köln, 2002.
Mavroudi 2006 = M. Mavroudi, Occult science and society in Byzantium: consideration for future research, in P. Magdalino, M. Mavroudi (eds), The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, Geneva, 2006, p. 39-95.
Mavroudi 2019 [2020] = M. Mavroudi, Faith and community: their deployment in the modern study of Byzantino-Arabica, in P. Guran, D.A. Michelson (eds), Faith and community around the Mediterranean: In honor of Peter R.L. Brown, Bucharest-Heidelberg, 2019 [2020], p. 239-250.
Mavroudi 2023 = M. Mavroudi, Byzantine translations from Arabic into Greek: old and new historiography in confluence and in conflict, in Journal of Late Antique, Islamic and Byzantine Studies, 2/1-2, 2023, p. 215-288.
Mazzucchi 1997 = C.M. Mazzucchi, Per una punteggiatura non anacronistica, e più efficace, dei testi greci, in Bollettina della Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, n.s., 51, 1997, p. 129-143.
Mercati 1924 = G. Mercati, Su Giovanni Catrari, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 24/2, 1924, p. 300-305.
Mercati 1926 = G. Mercati, Scritti d’Isidoro, il cardinale ruteno, e codici a lui appartenuti che si conservano nella Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, Vatican City, 1926.
Miguet 2024 = Th. Miguet, Viatique du voyageur d’Ibn al-Ǧazzār. Histoire du texte grec, de la Sicile à Constantinople, Paris, 2024.
Mira Grob 2010 = E. Mira Grob, Documentary Arabic private and business letters on papyrus: form and function, content and context, Berlin-Boston, 2010.
MM = M. Miklosich, J. Müller, Acta et diplomata graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, Vienna, 1860-1890.
Morrisson 1979 = C. Morrisson, La logarikè : réforme monétaire et réforme fiscale sous Alexis Ier Comnène, in Travaux et mémoires, 7, 1979, p. 419-464.
Nessel 1690 = D. Nessel, Breviarium et supplementum commentariorum Lambecianorum, sive catalogus, aut recensio specialis omnium codd. mss. graecorum, necnon linguarum orientalium biblioth. Caesareae Vindobonensis, Vienna, 1690.
Neugebauer – Van Hoesen 1959 [1987] = O. Neugebauer, H.B. Van Hoesen, Greek Horoscopes, Philadelphia, 1959 [1987].
Neugebauer 1960 = O. Neugebauer, Studies in Byzantine astronomical terminology, in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 50/2, 1960, p. 1-45.
Neugebauer 1962 = O. Neugebauer, Interpretationes, in Boer 1962, p. 145-149.
Noret 1995 = J. Noret, Notes de ponctuation et d’accentuation byzantines, in Byzantion. Revue internationale des études byzantines, 65, 1995, p. 69-88.
Noret 2014 = J. Noret, L’accentuation byzantine : en quoi et pourquoi elle diffère de l’accentuation « savante » actuelle, parfois absurde, in M. Hinterberger (ed.), The language of Byzantine literature, Turnhout, 2014, p. 96-146.
Olivieri 1898 = A. Olivieri, Frammenti dell’“Astrologia” di Efestione Tebano nel cod. Laurenziano 28, 34, in Studi italiani di filologia classica, 6, 1898, p. 1-27.
Opsomer 2010 = J. Opsomer, Olympiodorus, in L.P. Gerson, The Cambridge history of philosophy in Late Antiquity, 2, Cambridge, 2010, p. 697-710.
Pérez Martín 2015 = I. Pérez Martín, The transmission of Michael Psellos’ writings on Meteorologica, in J. Signes Codoñer, I. Pérez Martín (eds), Textual transmission in Byzantium: between textual criticism and Quellenforschung, Turnhout, 2015, p. 291-311.
Petersen 2013 = L.I.R. Petersen, Siege warfare and military organization in the successor states (400-800 AD): Byzantium, the West and Islam, Leiden-Boston, 2013.
Pingree 1977a = D. Pingree, Antiochus and Rhetorius, in Classical Philology, 72/3, 1977, p. 203-223.
Pingree 1977b = D. Pingree, The horoscope of Constantinople, in Y. Maeyama, W.G. Saltzer (eds), ΠΡΙΣΜΑΤΑ. Naturwissenschaftsgeschichtliche Studien. Festschrift für Willy Hartner, Wiesbaden, 1977, p. 305-315.
Pingree 1983 = D. Pingree, The Byzantine tradition of Vettius Valens’s “Anthologies”, in Harvard Ukranian Studies, 7, 1983 [= Okeanos: essays presented to Ihor Ševčenko on his sixtieth birthday by his colleagues and students], p. 532-541.
Pingree 1989 = D. Pingree, Classical and Byzantine astrology in Sassanian Persia, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 43, 1989, p. 227-239.
Pingree 1997 = D. Pingree, From astral omens to astrology: from Babylon to Bīkāner, Rome, 1997.
Pingree 2001 = D. Pingree, From Alexandria to Baghdād to Byzantium: the transmission of Astrology, in International journal of the classical tradition, 8/1, 2001, p. 6-21.
Pingree 2003 = D. Pingree, The sayings of Abū Maʿshar in Arabic, Greek and Latin, in G. Marchetti, O. Rignani, V. Sorge (eds), Ratio et superstitio: essays in honor of Graziella Federici Vescovini, Louvain-la-Neuve, 2003, p. 41-57.
Pingree 2004 = D. Pingree, The Greek fragment of al-Qabīṣī, in Burnett – Yamamoto – Yano 2004, p. 371-374.
Pingree 2006 = D. Pingree, The Byzantine translations of Māshā’llāh on interrogational astrology, in P. Magdalino, M. Mavroudi (eds), The occult sciences in Byzantium, Geneva, 2006, p. 231-243.
PLP = E. Trapp et al. (eds), Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, Vienna, 1976-1996.
Rosenthal 1958 = F. Rosenthal (ed.), Ibn Khaldūn, The Muqaddimah: an introduction to history, II, New York, 1958.
Safran 2020 = L. Safran, A prolegomenon to Byzantine diagrams, in M. Kupfer, A.S. Cohen, J.H. Chajes (eds), The visualization of knowledge in medieval and early modern Europe, Turnhout, 2020, p. 361-382.
Sahas 2021 = D.J. Sahas, ‘Saracens’ and the Syrians in the Byzantine anti-Islamic literature and before, in J. Sahas, Byzantium and Islam: collected studies on Byzantine-Muslim encounters, Leiden, 2021, p. 182-202.
Saliba 1999 = G. Saliba, Astronomy and astrology in medieval Arabic thought, in R. Rashed, J. Biard (eds), Les doctrines de la science de l’antiquité à l’âge classique, Leuven, 1999, p. 131-164.
Šangin 1926 = М. А Шангин, Греческий перевод Абӯ Ма’шара в рукописи Библиотеки Академии Наук [Une traduction grecque d’Abū Ma’ˇsar, un manuscrit de la Bibliothèque de l’Académie des Sciences], in Известия Академии наук СССР. VI серия, 20-10, 1926, p. 907-916.
Savvides 1997 = A.G.C. Savvides, Some notes on the terms Agarenoī, Ismaelītai and Sarakenoī in Byzantine sources, in Byzantion. Revue internationale des études byzantines, 67, 1997, p. 89-96.
Schilbach 1970 = E. Schilbach, Byzantinische Metrologie, Munich, 1970.
Sophoulis 2012 = P. Sophoulis, Byzantium and Bulgaria, 775-831, Leiden-Boston, 2012.
Tihon 1973 = A. Tihon, Les scolies des Tables Faciles de Ptolémée, in Bulletin de l’Institut historique Belge de Rome, 43, p. 49-110.
Tihon 1989 = A. Tihon, Sur l’identité de l’astronome Alim, in Archives internationales d’histoire des sciences, 39, 1989, p. 3-21.
Tihon 1993 = A. Tihon, L’astronomie à Byzance à l’époque iconoclaste (VIIIe-IXe siècles), in P.L. Butzer, D. Lohrmann (eds), Science in Western and Eastern civilization in Carolingian times, Basel, 1993, p. 181-203.
Tihon 2017 = A. Tihon, Premier humanisme byzantin : le témoignage des manuscrits astronomiques, in Travaux et Mémoires, 21/2, 2017, p. 325-337.
Tolsa 2019 = C. Tolsa, Astrometeorology by Syrus, in SCIAMVS. Sources and commentaries in exact sciences, 20, 2019, p. 1-30.
Toomer 1963 = G.J. Toomer, Rev. to Boer 1962, in Gnomon, 35, 1963, p. 269-272.
Toomer 1984 = G.J. Toomer, Ptolemy’s Almagest: translated and annotated. With a Foreword by O. Gingerich, London, 1984.
Usener 1876 = H. Usener, Ad historiam astronomiae symbola, Bonn, 1876.
von Lingenthal 1857 = C.E.Z. von Lingenthal, Jus Graeco-Romanum, Pars III, Novellae constitutiones, Leipzig, 1857.
Warnon 1967 = J. Warnon, Le commentaire attribué à Héliodore sur les Εἰσαγωγικά de Paul d’Alexandrie, in Recherches de philologie et de linguistique, 1, Leuven, 1967, p. 197-217.
Westerink 1971 = L.G. Westerink, Ein astrologisches Kolleg aus dem Jahre 564, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 64/1, 1971, p. 6-21.
Westerink 1975 = L.G. Westerink, (ed.), Mazaris’ Journey to Hades or Interviews with dead men about certain officials of the Imperial Court, Buffalo, NY, 1975.
Wolska-Conus 1989 = W. Wolska-Conus, Stéphanos d’Athènes et Stéphanos d’Alexandrie : essai d’identification et de biographie, in Revue des études byzantines, 47, 1989, p. 5-89.
Haut de page
Notes
Online reproductions and a preliminary analysis of the mentioned manuscripts can be found by searching Pinakes: https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/ via the diktyon number.
Boer 1962, p. viii-xii. The authorship of this text is disputed: reasons for attributing the text to Olympiodorus and not to Heliodorus (either of the totality of the text, or of the bulk of the extant text), are given in Toomer 1963, p. 270, Warnon 1967 and Westerink 1971, p. 10-13; see, more recently, Pingree 2004, p. 371, and Greenbaum 2012. For a status quaestionis, see Opsomer 2010, p. 700-710, Heilen 2015, p. 502-503, and Caluori 2018, p. 2056. The name “Heliodorus” in W, fol. 162r, is added to the title by the copyist of the main text, in brown ink.
The reference edition is Hübner 1998. Previous editions include Robbins 1940, and Boll – Boer [1940] 1957. For an update of Hübner’s edition, see at least Vuillemin-Diem – Steel 2015, p. 93-129, and infra, Section 1.
Some chapters are published in the appendixes of the CCAG volumes, see László 2022, p. 252-257: 254-255, for an overview. David Pingree (see just below) could not carry the critical edition of Theophilus to completion. I intend to complete a study of the textual transmission and an edition of these works in a future publication. The pinakes of Theoph., Apotel. and De in. bell. are preserved in MSS Paris, BnF, supplément grec 1241 [diktyon 53905] (henceforth Pa), fols. 1r-2v and Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat. gr. 212 [diktyon 66843] (henceforth T), fols. 105r-107v. In the present article, I use the title Apotelesmatica, following Pingree 2001, p. 13, and I follow the numbering of the chapters as in the Pa and T.
Usener 1876, p. 21, and Farina 2022b, p. 233-234.
Pingree 2004, p. 373-374, and infra, Section 3.
In the pinax (W, fol. 161v) it is indicated as ἀπὸ Σαρακηνῶν βιβλίου, while in the title of the chapter (W, fol. 219r) as ἀπὸ Σαρακηνικοῦ βιβλίου. For an edition and an English translation of the chapters, see infra, Section 3.
See the bibliography attached to the description of the manuscript, see infra, Appendix 1.
Pingree 2004, p. 371-374. For an edition (Arabic and Latin) and an English translation of al-Qabīṣī’s treatise, see Burnett – Yamamoto – Yano 2004, p. 18-155, 225-364.
For an historiographical overview, see Mavroudi 2002, p. 398-399, Mavroudi 2023, and Acerbi – Trizio 2022 [2023].
The date of copying the manuscript, penned in a high-quality Perlschrift written by a single elegant and calligraphic hand, is disputed. It has recently been proposed that it dates to the mid 11th century, during the rule of Constantine IX Monomachos (r. 1042-1055) due to a perceived cultural influence of Michael Psellos (Pérez Martín 2015, p. 292-293). For further information on the manuscript, see Caballero Sánchez 2013a, p. 89-92 (who dates it to the 1060s), and Rovati 2018, p. 60 (who dates it to the 1030s).
Pingree 1997, p. 64-65.
See for example Hunger 1961, p. 226-227.
Text: εἰς τὸ ͵ϛψν ἔτος ἰν(δικτιῶνος) ιε· ἐν μη(νὶ) ὀ(κ)τ(ωβρίῳ)· ϛ τοῦ αὐτ(οῦ) μη(νὸς) ἡμέρᾳ· περὶ ὥραν ζ· ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἐγένετο νὺξ, περὶ ὥραν ἥμισυ· καὶ ἐφάνησ(αν) καὶ ἀστέρ(ες). This note was brought to scholarly attention in Usener 1876, p. 21.
On the 12th century scholarly hands to which the production of many scientific manuscripts is attributed, see Bianconi 2010, p. 90-91 (with bibliography).
For parallels of some peculiarities, see Alexius I’s Lavra chrysobulls dating to 1104 and 1109, and Michael VII’s Lavra imperial document dated 1074, see Cavallo 2000, III, p. 158 (tav. 8) and 160 (tav. 10).
Cavallo 2000.
On the top of the folio, above the horoscopic thema one reads: ⟦μηνὶ σεπτ(εμβρί)ω γ⟧ μηνὶ σεπτ(εμβρί)ω ι (ἰ)ν(δικτιῶνος) γ ἡμέρα δ ὥρα α λεπτὰ κθ. Pingree computed September 10th, 1169 as the date, see Boer 1962, p. 150a-b. The positions of the planets are confirmed by modern computations carried out by using Kairos 4.0 by Raymond Mercier. In the following table I set out the values found in the manuscripts (column W), those computed for Constantinople, September 10th, 1169, circa 7:29 a.m. (column MC = modern computation), and the differences between them (column Δ).
|
W
|
MC
|
Δ
|
|
Sun
|
Vi 23;45
|
Vi 23;54
|
0;9
|
|
Moon
|
Ar 15;57
|
Ar 16;43
|
0;46
|
|
Mercury
|
Vi 13;58
|
Vi 18;19
|
4;21 (!)
|
|
Venus
|
Sc 10;42
|
Sc 10;27
|
0;15
|
|
Mars
|
Vi 27;34
|
Vi 27;42
|
0;8
|
|
Jupiter
|
Ta 5;5
|
Ta 4;24
|
1;26
|
|
Saturn
|
Aq 21;52
|
Aq 22;35
|
0;43
|
For the edition of the text, see infra, Section 3.
The titles of the following chapters were written on a once-blank now-lost folio.
I offer here some preliminary observations; I will undertake a thorough philological analysis of all the texts contained in the florilegium in a future study.
The numbering, once reaching 137, was later corrected by Ca.
The items in the table are listed alphabetically by author. For a detailed analysis of W, see infra, Appendix 1; for L, see Caballero Sánchez 2013a, p. 89-92.
Ed. CCAG, I, p. 142-164.
Ed. infra, Section 3.
Ed. Wolf 1559; a critical edition by R. Caballero Sánchez is currently in preparation for publication in the Teubner series. W shares with L only a brief extract from the methodological scholia to Book I, see infra, Appendix 1; ed. Caballero Sánchez 2013b, p. 225-241 (without considering W). For further discussion on the text and its authorship, see Caballero Sánchez 2020, Caballero Sánchez 2021, and more recently, Caballero Sánchez 2022.
Ed. Pingree 1973. L and W carry different chapters, with the sole exception of Heph., Apotel., III.2.6-12.
Ed. Pingree 1974, p. 47-125.
Ed. Kühn 1830, XIX, p. 529-571 and Rovati 2018, p. 82-123.
Ed. CCAG, I, p. 138-139.
Ed. Hübner 1998. L and W carry different chapters (aside for Ptol., Apotel., II.12-13 [l. 925-1060]), both belonging to the stemmatic branch ψ, see infra, n. 52.
Ed. Boer 1962.
Ed. CCAG, I, p. 171-172 (l. 20).
Partial ed. CCAG, I, p. 140 (l. 16-32).
For orientation, refer to the English translation of Theophilus’ works in Dykes-Gramaglia 2017 for now. On the shortcomings of this publication, see László 2022, p. 254.
W, fols. 83v (l. 6)-106v (l. 9); 109v (l. 15)-114v (l. 3); L, fols. 69r (l. 16)-82v (l. 12).
CCAG, I, p. 138-139. This fragment (up to fol. 84v [l. 40]) is labelled F1 in László 2020, p. 7. As noted by Stephan Heilen, there are similarities between the Petosiris fragment contained in Julianus’ fragment (Nech. et Pet. fr. +23 Heilen) and a chapter allegedly attributed to Theophilus (Nech. et Pet. fr. +27 Heilen), see CCAG, XI.1, p. 223 l. 18-27, Heilen 2015, p. 653, 1300, and László 2020, p. 11.
Pingree 1997, p. 65 n. 13 states that ch. 1.13-18 come from an Arabic source, without identifying them as chapters of Theoph., De in. var. The chapter is included in the pinax of the treatise found in Pa, fol. 2r (l. 1-5).
Pa, fol. 2v (l. 22), cfr. Hübner 1995.
The mention follows the only chapters excerpted from Theoph., De in. bell. in L.
1: W, fols. 116v (l. 8)-117r (l. 10); L, fol. 83v (l. 12-25); 2: W, fols. 121v (l. 9)-122r (l. 12); L, fol. 85r (l. 13-31).
τὸ μικρόν is missing in L. The complete scholium as it reads in W is as follows: Σημείωσαι· ἱστέον ὅτι ἐὰν τίς σοι ὁμιλῇ περὶ πράγματος λαβὼν τὸν ὡροσκόπον, βλέπε εἰς ποῖον ζῴδιον ἐμπίπτει· καὶ ἐκ τούτου νόει. ἐὰν μὲν ἐμπέσῃ ἐν Κριῷ ἢ Καρκίνῳ ἢ Ζυγῷ ἢ Αἰγοκέρωτι ὅτι ἂν λαληθῇ, ἀργὰ καὶ φαῦλα. εἰ δὲ ἐμπέσῃ Ταύρῳ ἢ Λέοντι ἢ Σκορπίῳ ἢ Ὑδροχόῳ, ἰσχυρὰ καὶ βέβαια τὰ λεγόμενα. Σημείωσαι· εἰ δὲ Διδύμοις ἢ Παρθένῳ περὶ ἀνθρώπου φύσεως, καὶ ἀνώμαλα πράγματα. εἰ δὲ Τοξότῃ ἢ Ἰχθύσι, μετάμελον ἔχει τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ οὐ γίνεται· ὡσαύτως δὲ ἐὰν ἐν φυλακῇ εἰσέλθῃ τίς ἢ |117r ἐν ἐξορίᾳ καὶ εὑρεθῇ ὁ ὡροσκόπος Κριῷ ἢ Καρκίνῳ ⟨ἢ Ζυγῷ⟩ ἢ Αἰγοκέρωτι, οὐ βραδύνει, ἀλλὰ ταχὺ ἀπολύεται. εἰ δὲ πέσῃ ὁ ὡροσκόπος ἐν Ταύρῳ ἢ Λέοντι ἢ Σκορπίῳ ἢ Ὑδροχόῳ, βραδύνει ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ μὴ καὶ δίκην δώσει. ἐὰν δὲ τοῖς λοιποῖς ζῳδίοις μετὰ προστασίας καὶ δικασιασμοῦ καὶ ἀνακρίσεως, ἀπολύεται ἀγαθοποιοὶ (sic) δηλονότι μαρτυροῦντος. τοῦτο τὸ κεφάλαιον εὕρῃς καὶ εἰς τὸ ἕτερον βιβλίον τὸ μαῦρον τὸ μικρὸν εἰς φῦλλον εἰκοστὸν ἀπὸ τὴν ἀρχήν.
CCAG, I, p. 140, and Boll 1899b, p. 158.
W, fol. 86v (l. 1); L, fol. 70r (l. 38), and W, fol. 101v (l. 6); L, fol. 77v (l. 29).
W, fol. 37r (l. 10); L, fol. 99v (l. 35).
Pa, fol. 46r (l. 2), restores μετάβασιν as a missing word. The meaningless sequence ποιεῖ τὸ in W is read as ποιεῖτο in Pa.
W, fol. 45r (l. 14-16); L, fol. 101v (l. 13-14).
⟨ps.-⟩Heliod., Comm. is included in the second unit of the manuscript, nevertheless it is listed here because both W and L belong to the same stemmatic branch according to Boer 1962, p. x.
Heph., Apotel., I.3-5, 8-12 (l. 380-445, 488-745); II.12 (l. 936-993); I.12 (l. 746-775); I.14 (l. 810-839); I.18-20 (876-1018); I.21 (l. 1139-1185; 1073-1087); I.22-24 (1190-1212; 1220-1226; 1238-1265); II.13 (l. 994-1061). The fragments on fols. 146r-153v are not mentioned in the summary description of the codex in Hübner 1998, p. xvi.
Vuillemin-Diem – Steel 2015, p. 51 n. 13.
Va is the most complete manuscript used by the editors.
Branch ψ is opposed to the branch αβγ. For a discussion of the four-branch stemma proposed in Boll – Boer [1940] 1957, p. xvi and Hübner 1998, p. xv, and their reduction to two, see the observations in Alberti 1979, p. 41-43, Dorandi 2000, and more recently, Vuillemin-Diem – Steel 2015, p. 49-91, and Acerbi 2023, p. 129 n. 54.
Ptol., Apotel., II.12-13 (l. 925-1060) are the only chapters witnessed by the branch ψ and they can be therefore used as a case study of the stemmatic relations between the different branches. Conjunctive innovations include (Heph. = Heph., Apotel.; Procl. = Procli quae dicitur paraphrasis): 958 σεισμοποιὰ καὶ ἀχλυώδη αβγHeph.] om. LGVaProcl.: καὶ ἀχλυώδη om. W; 970 τρεπτικὸν αβγHeph. : uersatiuum G] τροπικὸν LVaW, cfr. Procl. (τροπῆς); 1035-37 διὰ τοῦ … συσχηματισμοῦ αβγ] διὰ τοῦ … συσχηματισμῶν (συσχημῶν Va) LVaW : per id quod … configurationum G. I hope to reassess the stemma after a complete collation of the manuscript tradition in a future study.
Vuillemin-Diem – Steel 2015, p. 59-81.
W, fols. 120v-121r (l. 10); 132v (l. 2-9); 150v (l. 6)-151v (l. 7).
Pingree 1973, p. 229-230. The sigla are those used in Pingree’s edition: A = Paris, BnF, grec 2841 [diktyon 52479], C = Venezia, BNM, Marc. gr. Z. 334 (coll. 553) [diktyon 69805], P = Paris, BnF, grec 2417 [diktyon 52049].
The only exceptions are: 1. an excerpt of Heliod. (?), In Ptol. Ap.; 2. ⟨ps.-⟩Syrus, Universal doctrine.
L, fols. 144v (l. 29)-145r (l. 10).
Supra, n. 11.
The text suffers from several lacunas; it makes use of a method ascribed to Theon of Alexandria that is included in a series of scholia to Ptolemy’s Handy Tables and Psephophoria, see Tihon 1973, Tihon 2017, p. 336, and Acerbi 2020, p. 283-286. The text was first printed in CCAG, VI, p. 79-80. Theon’s method is published in Lepsius 1858, p. 123-124, Biot 1896, p. 130, and more recently in Tihon 1973, p. 61, 83-89. For a discussion about the era Menophres, see Łukaszewicz 1995, p. 99-108, and Ladynin 2019, p. 245-265. The chapter reads as follows (punctuation is normalised): Περὶ τῆς τοῦ Κυνὸς ἐπιτολῆς. Λαβὼν τὰ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μακεδόνος τελευτῆς ἔτη τούτοις πρόσθες καὶ τὰ ἀπὸ Μενόφρεως ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς τοῦ αὐτοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου ἔτη ϡϙη, καὶ τῶν συναχθέντων λαβὼν τὸ τέταρτον μέρος πρόσθες καθόλου ἡμέρας ε εἰς τὸ τέταρτον μέρος, καὶ ἐκ τῶν γενομένων ἔκκρουσον τὰς τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου τετραετηρίδας, καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς ἡμέρας ἀπόλυσον ἀπὸ ἀρχῆς τοῦ Θὼθ διδοὺς ἑκάστῳ μηνὶ ἡμέρας λ, καὶ ὅπου δ’ ἂν καταλήξῃ ὁ ἀριθμός, ἐκείνη ἔσται ἡ τοῦ Κυνὸς ἐπιτολή. Ὑπόδειγμα. Ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς Θεοφίλου βασιλείας γίνεται ἀπὸ Μενόφρεως ἔτη ͵βρν· τούτων τὸ τέταρτον· φλζ· τούτοις πρόσθες καθόλου ἡμέρας ε· ὁμοῦ γίνονται ἡμέραι φμβ· ἐκ τούτων ἄφελε τετραετηρίδας σιγ· καὶ μένουσι τιθ· ταῦτα ἀπομέρισον ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Θώθ, καὶ καταλήγει ἡ τοῦ Kυνὸς ἐπιτολὴ Ἐπιφὶ ἡμέρᾳ κθ· εἰ⟨ς⟩ δὲ κθ τοῦ Ἐπιφὶ δηλονότι τοῦ παρὰ Ἀλεξανδρεῦσιν, ὅστις μεταλαμβάνεται εἰς Ἑλληνικὸν ἤτοι Ῥωμαϊκὸν μῆνα Ἰουλίου ἡμέρᾳ κγ. καὶ ὁμοίως ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐτῶν τὸ αὐτὸ ποιητέον· ἔτη ἀπὸ Μενόφρεως ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου ϡϙη· ἕως τῆς λήξεως Αὐγούστου ͵ατλε· ἕως τῆς ἀρχῆς Θεοφίλου ͵βρνα· Θεόφιλος ιβ· Μιχαὴλ σὺν τῇ μητρὶ αὐτοῦ Θεοδώρᾳ ἔτη ιδ· Μιχαὴλ μόνος ιβ· Βασίλειος ιθ· Λέων υἱὸς αὐτοῦ κϛ· Ἀλέξανδρος ἕν· [sp. 4 litt.] Κωνσταντῖνος μετὰ Ῥωμανοῦ ἕως ἰνδικτιῶνος [sp. 4 litt.] ἔτη [sp. 4 litt.]· τὰ δὲ πάντα ἔτη ἀπὸ Μενόφρεώς εἰσιν ἕως Ῥωμανοῦ καὶ ἕως ἰνδικτιῶνος [sp. 4 litt.]· τὸ τέλος ἔτη ͵βσμ· καὶ ἔστι τὸ τέταρτον φξβ· πρόσθες καὶ ε· καὶ γίνονται ὁμοῦ φξζ· ἀπὸ τούτων ἔκκρουσον τὰς τετραετηρίδας τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ, αἵτινές εἰσι σλη, καὶ μετ’ αὐτῶν τὰς πρὸ τοῦ Σεπτεμβρίου γ καὶ Ὀκτωβρίου μία τῶν λοιπῶν, καὶ τὰ ἐναπομείναντα ἀπὸ τοῦ Σεπτεμβρίου ἀπόλυσον, καὶ ὅπου καταντήσει, ἐκεῖ γίνεται ἡ ἐπιτολὴ τοῦ Κυνός. L does not preserve this chapter but witnesses two different chapters on the same subject (fols. 107v-108v, 124r-v), see CCAG, I, p. 67-68.
Kunitzsch 1964.
CCAG, V.1, p. 214-217 (published on the basis of A, fol. 209r [l. 9]-209v [l. 18], and Pa, fols. 30r [l. 2]-31v).
CCAG, V.1, p. 212-213.
Pingree 1977a, p. 211; László 2020, p. 331-332. Rhetorius’ chapter was re-computed twice, once for year 853/4 (addition of 7;10°) and once for year 887/8 (addition of 7;30°), see Tihon 2017, p. 336, and László 2020, p. 335.
The recomputed chapter is also witnessed to in MS Venezia, BNM, Marc. gr. Z. 334 (coll. 553) [diktyon 69805] (henceforth M), fols. 26r (l. 9)-27v (l. 3).
W, fols. 117r (l. 11)-117v (l. 15); 118r (l. 5)-120r.
On the text attributed to Syrus, see Tolsa 2019.
Boer 1962, p. x.
Boer 1962, p. 8 (ch. 5), and Neugebauer 1962, p. 145-146.
Boer’s branch β.
Ed. Boer 1962, p. 46 (l. 7)-53 (l. 16), 55 (l. 11)-59 (l. 15), 60-61 (l. 27).
CCAG, VIII.4, p. 45-65, Caballero Sánchez 2013a, p. 94-97, and Gioffreda 2020, p. 233-235.
On Argyrus, see in general PLP, n. 1285; on his manuscripts, see Gioffreda 2020 (with bibliography).
CCAG, I, p. 6-20, Rovati 2018, p. 49-51, and Gioffreda 2020, p. 180-184. The astrological compilation contained in I likely stems from L, for a preliminary overview of the overlapping contents of L and I, see CCAG, VIII.4, p. 45-65 and CCAG, I, p. 60-72.
For an overview of the witnesses of the Byzantine recension, see Boer 1962, p. x.
For a table showing the contents common to W and G, see infra, Appendix 2.
Ed. Pingree 1968.
On this manuscript, see at least Acerbi – Gioffreda 2019 (with bibliography).
See Caballero Sánchez 2013a, p. 96.
The erroneous reading ἀγρονομίαν instead of ἀστρονομίαν (fol. 219r [l. 2]) is likely due to the confusion between the ligature στ and majuscule γ (as written in the manuscript).
Burnett – Yamamoto – Yano 2004, p. 2, and Pingree 2004, p. 373.
As already noted by Pingree, in the chapter occurs the word ἐξάλλαξις, instead of the more common ἐναλλαγή, see Pingree 2004, p. 373 n. 12.
Infra, Section 3.
The study of the manuscript transmission of the treatise, along with the edition of its Arabic, Greek, and Latin versions and an English translation, is currently in progress. For a preliminary overview, see Pingree 2003, p. 43.
Pingree 2003, p. 41-57, Pingree in Yamamoto – Burnett 2019, II, p. 1-116, Csorba – Veszprémy 2020 [2022], and Farina 2022b, p. 238.
The manuscript is a computational primer, one of the most important witnesses of the Rechenbücher tradition, and the only witness of the fiscal treatises known as Palaia Logarikē (fols. 3r-13r) and Nea Logarikē (13r-21v) composed in circa 1118, see von Lingenthal 1857, p. 385-400, Hendy 1969, p. 50-64, and Morrisson 1979. For a thorough analysis of the manuscript, with the edition of the list of multiples and submultiples of currency units, and of the Easter Computus, see Acerbi 2021. For the Rechenbücher tradition, see Acerbi 2019.
It occurs on fols. 68r (marg.) (in the genitive case) and in 195r (in the accusative case), see CCAG, V.3, p. 17 (the symbol is not resolved). περὶ τοῦ γνῶναι τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν … μέλλη ὠφεληθῆναι παρά τινος ἄρχοντος.
On the manuscript, see most recently Farina 2022b, p. 247-250, Glynias 2022, p. 188-196, and Manfredi-Potenza 2022, p. 745-747.
De Montfaucon 1708, p. 359-360: 359. The only missing symbol in the list provided by de Montfaucon is the one for hyperpyron, which does not occur in P (a reference to it is given only by the name νόμισμα τραχὺ ἄσπρον, see Hendy 1969, p. 54).
The chapter is published in CCAG, V.1, p. 145-146 (the symbol occurs on p. 146, l. 22) on the basis of A, fol. 42v (the symbol is not resolved).
For an English translation of the Arabic chapter, see Dunlop 1971, p. 235-236. The symbol probably was unknown to the Latin translator of the text which chose to render it in “minas”, see Federici Vescovini 1998, p. 299: «Dedit igitur ei rex mille minas…».
On Pe, see Šangin 1926, and CCAG, XII, p. 3-6.
From the 13th century onwards, the word hyperpyron and nomisma were used interchangeably, see Andréadès 1924, p. 75 and Frolow 1949, p. 244-246. A late occurrence of the symbol is found in the notes by Isidore of Kiev (1385-1463) in MS Città del Vaticano, BAV, Vat. gr. 1896 [diktyon 68525], fol. 277r (l. 1-5), see Canart 1970, p. 553 (the symbol is resolved in hyperpyra, correcting Mercati 1926, p. 52 n. 1), and Farina 2023, p. 100-101.
V, fol. 196r (ch. 14): Εἶπον τῷ Ἀπομάσαρ· ποία ἐστὶν ἐπικρατεστέρα σημασία, ἡ τῶν ζῳδίων ἢ ἡ τῶν ἀστέρων; καὶ εἶπε μοι ὅτι ἡ τῶν ζῳδίων· τοσοῦτον γὰρ ὑπερνικᾷ ἡ σημασία τῶν ζῳδίων τῶν σημασίων τῶν ἀστέρων, ὅσον τὸ νόμισμα τοῦ μιλιαρισίου. In Latin: Dixi Albumazari: «Que est efficacior significatio, signorum vel astrorum?» Respondit mihi quod signorum, et tantum supergreditur significatio signorum significationem astrorum quantum moneta aurea argenteam.
Hendy 1969, p. 89-96.
The second horoscope is preserved solely in Latin, see Csorba – Veszprémy 2020 [2022], p. 86. On the Greek version of the first horoscope (ch. 35), see also Caballero Sánchez 2018, p. 150-156.
Ed. CCAG, VI, p. 81, Stegemann 1939, fr. 59, and Pingree 1976, p. 374.
Pingree 1976, p. 374.
Ed. Pingree 1976, p. 3-158.
See Pingree 1989, Pingree 1997, p. 63-77, and Pingree 2001. On Pingree’s publications, how to read them and on the historiography concerning translations from Arabic into Greek, as well as for a broad overview of the state of research, see Mavroudi 2023, p. 236 n. 87 (with bibliography). On how Pingree’s theory has been used in Gutas 1998, see Acerbi – Trizio 2022 [2023], p. 129-131. On translations from Arabic into Greek (both historiography and texts), see Mavroudi 2002, p. 392-429; Gutas 2012, Mavroudi 2019 [2020], Kaldellis 2022, p. 403-405, 411-420, Glynias – Chitwood – Pahlitzsch 2022, Cronier – Guardasole – Pietrobelli 2023, Mavroudi 2023, and Miguet 2024, p. 11-23.
Pingree 1997, p. 65.
Pingree 1997, p. 71. Pingree stressed his opinion in later works, see Pingree 2003, p. 43, Pingree 2004, p. 373, Pingree 2006, p. 236-237, and Pingree in Yamamoto – Burnett 2019, II, p. 1.
Pingree 1997, p. 74.
On John Abramius, his manuscripts, and the links he established with other contemporary scholars (such as Isaac Argyrus), see Farina 2022a, p. 205-249 (with bibliography).
Pingree 1989, p. 237; Pingree 1997, p. 64-78.
On Theophilus, see Pingree 2001, p. 13-17 and Hoyland 2011, p. 4-7, and Heilen 2015, p. 928-929. On Stephanus, see Wolska-Conus 1989, Tihon 1993, p. 183-190, Magdalino 2006, p. 17-57, Martelli 2016, and Glynias 2022, p. 190-196.
Pingree 1989, p. 239.
CCAG, II, p. 181-186: 181-182. The text is published on the basis of MS Venezia, BNM, Marc. gr. Z. 335 (coll. 645) [diktyon 69806], fols. 25r-27v, without taking into account the recension contained in V, fols. 8r-11r.
de Boor 1883, p. 467-468, see also Magdalino 2006, p. 55.
On the identification of Constantinople and the discussion of the 5° deviation, see Tihon 1993, p. 183-190.
CCAG, II, p. 182 l. 2.
Pingree 1997, p. 64, 68, and Pingree 2001, p. 12.
A thorough study of the manuscript transmission of Theophilus’ works is in progress, for now see Pingree 2001, p. 20-21, and László 2022, p. 253-257.
Tihon 1993, p. 183-190. In addition to the evidence adduced by Tihon, recall that the name of the author of the treatise, in V, fol. 8r, is added by a later hand and that the treatise’s last paragraph (fols. 10v [l. 14]-11r) is written by a different copyist from the one which copied the other paragraphs and contains an extended version of the text published in CCAG, II, p. 186. These features have been first pointed out in Glynias 2022, p. 190-191 n. 22.
Tihon links this feature with the diffusion of the Byzantine adaptation of Ibn al‐ʾAʿlam’s tables, which dates to at least 1032, see Tihon 1989, and Tihon 2017, p. 330 (and the bibliography mentioned there).
Jones 1987, p. 32-35.
CCAG, II, p. 182 l. 19.
Magdalino 2003, p. 19, Caudano 2012, p. 53, Caudano 2021, p. 40-44, and Glynias 2022, p. 194.
Additional considerations should be made about the significance of the influx of Arabic astrology into Byzantium via Stephanus-Theophilus, described as “the Byzantine astrologer of the Umayyad period” by Ibn Ḫaldūn, see Rosenthal 1958, p. 216. Theophilus’ sources were mostly Greek (Dorotheus/Julianus [De in. bell./De in. var.], Rhetorius/Ptolemy [Apotel.], Dorotheus/Nechepso-Petosiris [De in. cosm.]) and his treatises were most likely written in Greek, see Pingree 2001, p. 15-16. It has been pointed out (Mavroudi 2006, p. 88) that the language he used is not without inconsistencies in the use of technical terms (Χηλαί and Ζυγός for Libra, CCAG, VIII.1, p. 268 l. 23, 270 l. 8) and Arabism (θεοῦ συνεργοῦντος for bi-ʾawn allāh, CCAG, V.1, p. 234 l. 19). Now, the presence of both Χηλαί and Ζυγός to indicate Libra is no inconsistency and could just result from different resolutions of the standard sign, while the presence of an Arabism could be read as an authorial mark, as Theophilus was a polyglot. These treatises cannot be read in a critical edition yet, see Pingree 2001, p. 14, and Mavroudi 2006, p. 87-88.
CCAG, XI.1, p. 206 [l. 15-16]: ἐν Διδύμοις μετὰ τῆς τῶν καλοποιῶν μαρτυρίας ἄπρακτον ἀναχώρησιν τῶν πολιορκούντων σημαίνει. L only carries a small chunk of Theoph., De in. bell. on fols. 170v-171v (these lines occurs on fol. 171v l. 5-7), but the fact that entire treatise would have been included in the archetype of L’s florilegium is Pingree’s speculation. It likely draws upon a chapter by Dorotheus on starting to row the ship in the water, see Doroth., Carmen, V.25, ed. Pingree 1976, p. 282-286.
Sophoulis 2012, p. 167-169, and Petersen 2013, p. 571.
Pingree 1968, p. viii n. 3: fols. 74r-76v, 77r-78r, 80v-81r, 82v-84r, 94r-94v, 129r.
It also occurs in MS Venezia, BNM, Marc. gr. Z. 324 (coll. 640) [diktyon 69795], and is edited in Pingree 1977b, 308-309. The Byzantine version of the De rev. nat. is referred to in a later dialogue (Hermippi de astrologia) likely dating to the time of Theodorus Meliteniotes (d. 1393), see Boll 1912 (on the authorship of the dialogue, see Mercati 1924, Jürss 1966, Bardi 2021, p. 7-8, and Bardi 2023, p. 4).
Given the arrangement and variety of these horoscopic chapters (which include nativities, inceptions, and solar transits), they appear to be a collection of examples exemplifying a number of techniques, composed by a 11th-century professional astrologer. This astrologer, who was possibly born on October 11th, 984 and was prone to commit calculation mistakes, combined several techniques, mostly taken from Valens, Anth., IV, VII but also from Dorotheus, Hephaestion of Thebes and Maximus. On the manuscript, see Glynias 2022, p. 197-199.
Once attributed to Eleutherius Eleus Zebelenus, it is neither by Eleutherius of Elis (fl. 1388) nor by Eleutherius of Gabala (fl. 1164). On the confusion on Eleutherius, see at least Pingree 1977b, p. 308-309, Bezza 2002, p. 299-300, Magdalino 2003, p. 23, and Magdalino 2006, p. 101.
Pingree 1968, p. 124-132.
Farina 2022b, p. 241 (with bibliography).
Pingree 1997, p. 73-74.
On the circulation of astrological florilegia dating to the reign of Manuel I, see Caudano 2012, in particular the works of John Synadenus (horoscopes dated to 1153 and 1162). The attention towards astronomy and astrology in the mid 12th century is confirmed by the lists of stars in V, fols. 30v-33r (dated 1155/6 and 1160/1), and by the interrogatio universalis by Eleutherius Zebelenus (fl. 1164), likely to be identified as the Byzantine translator of the Kitāb al-mudḫal fī ṣanāʿat ʾaḥkām al-nuǧūm by ʾAbū ’l-Ḥasan Kūšyār b. Labbān included in the Εἰσαγωγὴ καὶ θεμέλιον εἰς τὴν ἀστρολογίαν· ποίημα Ἀχμάτου τοῦ Πέρσου; see Yano 1997, p. 1-261 for the Arabic text and English translation, and Bezza 2002, for the edition and translation of the third book of the Byzantine version. On fol. 160v of W one finds a stylised Circle of Petosiris which recurs also in Synadenus-related manuscripts, see for example MS Napoli, BN, II.C.33 [diktyon 46079], fol. 309r, and Safran 2020, p. 375.
In my set-out below, the text is put in parallel with the Arabic original, taken from the edition Burnett – Yamamoto – Yano 2004, p. 108.
See supra, Section 1, n. 97.
On conjunctions, see at least Heilen 2020.
Details are as follows. Ch. 42 considers the positions of the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, and Venus. Ch. 43 addresses the position of the Lord of the Ascendant, see Yano 1997, II.8. Chapters 46 and 46b examine the outcomes of the Ascendant of the revolution of the year. Chapter 47, likely a pseudepigraphic work translated from Arabic into Greek, is attributed to Dorotheus and focuses on the influence of the planets in their morning phases during the revolution of the year, see ed. Pingree 1976, p. 374. Chapter 48 presents the Sun, the Moon, and Saturn when they enter Libra. Chapter 50 considers the Sun’s entry into Aries. Chapter 51 examines Mars, Venus, Mercury, Saturn, and the Moon as indicators or the Lords of the year. Chapter 51b addresses the Moon when the Sun enters the first part of the zodiac. Chapters 51c and 52 focus on the revolution of the year and provide an example of how the universal Ascendant is determined.
See Yano 1997, II.8. On klimata, see also Honigmann 1929.
Some letters have been restored thanks to an autoptic analysis of the manuscript.
In keeping with the copyist’s consistent style, I retained the grave accent of oxytone words before weak punctuation (marked by a comma). I tacitly corrected the grave accent to an acute accent before strong punctuation, see Noret 2014, p. 111-112. For a Byzantine technical text edited by following closely the accent (even in cases like ἴδε) and punctuation conventions of the prototype of the manuscript tradition, see most recently Acerbi – Di Mambro 2023, p. 27.
Noret 2014, p. 130-133. I adhere to the copyist’s practice in preserving the orthotonic form ἐστί(ν)/εἰσί(ν) across all chapters, even when the verb is preceded by an oxytone, paroxytone, perispomenon, or properispomenon word. I retained the recessive form ἔστι(ν) when it is preceded by καί, εἰ, ὅταν, μέν, and δέ, as is consistently done by the copyist.
Noret 1995. As the clause structure of these texts is highly formulaic, I have tacitly normalised punctuation whenever the copyist committed obvious mistakes. I refrained from inserting commas between syntactically inseparable parts of the sentence. Noret 1995, p. 71: «Mon propos n’est pas de traiter des différents signes, mais plutôt de la place où on trouve, en grec, une ponctuation, quelle que soit la forme que prend cette dernière (virgule, point en haut, point en bas, etc.)». On the punctuating Byzantine texts, see also Mazzucchi 1997.
The English translation follows the facing Greek text. The ordinals are written as full words only when in the manuscript they are written as such, otherwise with a termination at the exponent.
See infra, ch. 42, 48, and 51.
Lightfoot 2023, p. xii.
Useful tools are the indexes and explanations in Bouché-Leclerq 1899, Neugebauer 1960, Neugebauer – Van Hoesen 1987, p. 1-13, Bezza 2005, Heilen 2015, and Lightfoot 2021, p. 875-895. On the grammar and of astrological texts and on translating them, see Heilen 2010a, Heilen 2016, p. 511-512, 516-520, and László 2022, p. 20-21.
Heilen 2010a, p. 300. I have frequently “translated” liminal καί with punctuation. Some technical terms are simply transliterated: kentron (pl. -tra), apoklima (pl. -mata), (ep)anaphora (pl. -ai), klima (pl. -mata), nomisma (pl. -mata), noummion (pl. -mmia). The term τόπος is translated locus (pl. -ci).
Greek transliteration of al-Qabīṣī (d. 967).
Literally, “Saracen”. For the common use of the term Σαρακηνικός as “Arab”, see Christides 1969, Christides 1972; Savvides 1997, and Sahas 2021.
The last folio of the table of contents is missing.
Ἀστρονομίαν εἰσαγωγῆς refers to the Arabic title Kitāb al-mudḫal ʾilā ʿilm al-nuǧūm. In both Greek and Arabic, there is an ambiguity between “astrology” and “astronomy”, therefore, a more literal translation has been preferred, as noted in Hübner 1989, and Saliba 1999, respectively.
μα] Wmg.
ἀγρονομίαν] lege ἀστρονομίαν (quod tacite restituit Pi1).
For a discussion of the meanings of the term ὡροσκόπος, see Greenbaum – Ross 2010, p. 146-148. ὡροσκόπος indicates either the point where the ecliptic intersects the eastern horizon or the locus in which this point is. For the sake of better comprehension, in the following chapters I will use the modern term “Ascendant”, instead of transliterating “horoscopos”, as in Neugebauer – Van Hoesen 1959 [1987]. For a critical discussion, see Heilen 2010a, p. 307.
μβ] Wmg.
Literally, “coin”.
Following the previous claim that explicitly states that goods and money are antagonistic, it is to be intended as “scarce”, see infra, n. 156.
Literally, χρυσάφιον stands for a small gold object; in the translation, it is likened to χρυσός, as explicitly stated in the following lines of the chapter.
These are the impressions of images and letters on coins, see infra, ch. 51. The word γράμμα related to coins is also commonly used as a unit of measurement (lat. scripulum) of 1,111g, see Schilbach 1970, p. 184.
“Rising, ἀνατολικοί” and “setting, δυτικοί” have to be intended as “visible due to their distance from the Sun” and “invisible due to their proximity to the Sun”, respectively. For further explanations, see Denningmann 2005, app. 1, p. 386-474, and Denningmann 2007.
From Latin dignitas, it expresses a condition of prestige which can be intended as relationship and right of dominion, meaning that a planet has rulership over a place and authority over a matter. The expression is well attested in Heph., Apotel., and is Theophilus’ treatises.
εὐθηνεῖται] fortasse legendum κνιπεύει.
ὁ] suppl. : om. W.
εἰς] suppl. : om. W.
κνιπεύῃ] lege κνιπεύει.
ὑψοῦται] lege ὑψοῦνται.
τοῖς] suppl. : om. W.
ταπείνωμα] lege ταπεινώμασιν.
μγ] Wmg.
“Likewise” is likely to be supplied, see infra, n. 167.
ο] fortasse legendum ὁμοίως
μδ] Wmg.
ὄρθια] lege ὀρθὰ.
με] Wmg.
θέλεις] lege θέλῃς.
εἰς τὰ μέρη] suppl. : om. W.
μϛ] Wmg.
Vacuum reliquit W] ἐναλλαγῆς restituendum.
εἰς] suppl. : vacuum reliquit W.
εἰς] suppl. : om. W.
γου] τρίτου KrPi1.
μζ] Wmg.
Literally, “under the beams”.
πλήρης] lege πλήρη (corr. KrPi1).
κυριεύουσι] κυριεύουσιν Pi1.
κνιπείαν] κνιπεύειν KrPi1.
μη] Wmg.
ʾAbū Isḥāq Muḥammad b. Hārūn al-Rašīd, known as al-Muʿtaṣim (r. 833-842), is the eighth ʿAbbāsid Caliph, see Bosworth 1993, p. 776.
It probably refers to the flood of Baghdad that occurred in 835, see Karaǧī 1940, p. 11.
αὐτῆς] lege αὐτοῦ.
κνιπείαν] fortasse legendum εὐθηνίαν.
μὴ] lege μὲν.
μθ] Wmg.
That means retrograding. The verb ὀρθοποδίζω is usually rendered with terms close to ἀναποδίζω/ἀναποδισμός in astrological texts, or to προηγέομαι/προήγησις, see Toomer 1984, p. 20 and Heilen 2010a, p. 312.
That is, the two equinoxes and the two solstices.
ν] Wmg.
It translates the Arabic dinār, see supra, Section 2.
The Greek χάρτης/χαρτίον generally means a sheet or roll of papyrus (see LSJ 116441-116443) that is rendered in Arabic as waraq bardiyy. Even if by most accounts paper is said to have been introduced and spread in the Islamicate world from July 751 (victory on the Talas) onwards, and a paper mill is attested in Baghdad already in 794, see Karabaceck 1887, p. 121, documentary papyri from the ninth and tenth century are well attested, see for example, Mira Grob 2010. It cannot be ruled out, even if less plausible, that it is to be intended as “paper”, given that one of the Arabic words for paper is qirṭās, loan from Aramaic and Greek, see Gacek 2001, p. 114. Further internal references to papyri are found infra, ch. 51.
αὐτὸν] lege αὐτοὺς.
να] Wmg.
It translates the Arabic ʿanbar.
φασωλίου] lege φασουλίου.
κνιπείας] lege κνιπείαν.
ἐν τῷ Κριῷ] εἰς πυρῶδες W1sl.
ὑδαργύρου] lege ὑδραργύρου.
ἀερώδη] suppl. W1.
καὶ πασῶν] καὶ πασῶν ὁ suppl. W1.
ὑδατώδη δηλοῖ λεῖψιν] τώδη δηλοῖ λ (sic) suppl. W1.
εἰ δὲ ὁ] suppl. W1.
ζῴδιον] suppl. W1.
εἰς γεῶδες ζῴδιον] suppl. : εἰς γαιώ suppl. W1.
δηλοῖ λεῖψιν τ] suppl. W1.
καὶ] suppl. : om. W.
κονδύλων] lege κονδυλίων.
χρόνου] ἕως ᾧδας (sic) W1mg.
τόποις] ἀπῶδε (sic) Wmg.
κνιπείαν] fortasse legendum εὐθηνίαν.
ὑπὸ γῆν] ὑπογῆν W.
Vacuum reliquit W.
κρίνῃς] lege κρῖνε.
This happens when one of the five planets begins or stops retrograding.
τρόπον] lege τόπον.
That is, March 14th, 1111.
Generally, the term περίπατος indicates the motion of the planets along the zodiac (ecliptic circle).
νυκτὸς] suppl. Pi2.
τὸ αον] suppl. Pi2.
Κωνσταντινουπόλει] Κω⟨ν⟩σταντίνου πόλει Pi2.
ὅριος] lege ὁρίοις.
ὅριος] lege ὁρίοις.
Κρόνου] suppl. Pi2.
On fol. 227r only bits of words and of a thema, dated to the month of May, are readable.
τῶν] lege τῆς.
-σὶ] suppl. Pi2.
-ν Ἰχθύων] suppl. Pi2.
-δ ὥρας] suppl. Pi2.
-σα] suppl. Pi2.
ἦν] ἐστι Pi2.
λεπτὰ] suppl. Pi2.
ἀπὸ] suppl. Pi2.
τῆς νυκτὸς] γ´ λεπτὰ (?) ⟨κ⟩ suppl. Pi2.
Two quires are lost.
It includes fol. 122/1.
μανουὴλ τ(οῦ) νικηφόρ(ου) |1 ἐπήρ[…] [τ](ὸν) βλεμίδ[ην], ἵνα[ |2 διακομίσῃ τ[ῷ] βασιλεύοντι |3 τῷ δούκαν εἰς τ(ὸν) μελένικ[ον] |4 ὢν [τ]ῷ δημη[τρ]ίῳ τῷ |5 βουλωτῇ, ἐκ θεσ[σα]λονίκ(ης), a Demetrios Boullotes (Meliknasar) was οἰκεῖος of Manuel II, in Constantinople in 1401-1414, see PLP, n. 3084. Demetrios Boullotes was is mentioned in Mazaris’ Journey to Hades, and in documents dating to 1401 and 1404, see Westerink 1975, p. 40; ΜΜ, II, p. 509-510, 513-515, and Lefort et al. 2019, p. 197, 199. The text has been transcribed for the first time in Hunger 1961, p. 227 (and dated around 1255).
The beginning of the manuscript is lost, it starts with ch. κζ Ἡφαιστίονος περὶ καταρχῶν.
For an analysis of the horoscopic data, see supra, Section 1.
The text on fols. 7r (l. 6)-7v (l. 1) corresponds to the one published in CCAG, IX, p. 176-179: 177-178 on the basis of MS Oxford, Bodleian Library, Cromwell 12, p. 1219 (15th-16th century) [diktyon 47802]. On fol. 7v (l. 18-21) and in continuity with the text a quote begins from Ptol., Apotel., II.7.2, ed. Hübner 1998, p. 127 (l. 563-566).
Ptol., Apotel., II.9.11-II.14.4, ed. Hübner 1998, p. 139 (l. 754)-160 (l. 1086): the text ends ex abrupto.
It is a recension and conflation of different (and separated) chapters: Theoph., Apotel., 2-6 and 9-13, see Pa, fols. 25r-29r, 32r, 45v and T, fols. 135r-v, 151r-152v. It contains a description of the qualities of Venus (partial) and Mercury (complete) in the different Terms. Incomplete at the beginning, the text starts with Venus in Libra (Aries-Virgo are missing). The texts pertaining to Saturn-Mars are missing as well. On the doctrine of the Terms, see Hübner 1998, p. 68-81 (1. 21), and Heilen 2010b (with bibliography).
Ed. CCAG, VIII.1, p. 261-263 (l. 6), see also A, fols. 94v-95r.
Valens, Anth. app. XV (= Anth. III.6, 1-21), ed. Pingree 1986, p. 424-425.
The manuscript contains ch. 1-13 of the work as it can be read in Pa, fols. 22r-43r (l. 5) and T, fols. 132v (l. 4)-152v. The dedication (δευτέρα ἔκδοσις) to Deucalion, present in both manuscripts (ed. CCAG, V.1, p. 234-238) is omitted in W. The reconstructed order of the chapters (in keeping with W’s division) of the treatise as present in Pa is as follows: ch. 1: 19v (l. 20)-21v; 2 (part.): 32r-33r (l. 22); 3: 33r (l. 22)-34r (l. 9); 4: 34r (l. 9)-35v, 46r-47v, 22r-29r (l. 12); 5: 30r (l. 2)-31v, 36r-40r (l. 22); 6: 40r (l. 23)-40v (l. 9); 7: 40v (l. 9-18); 8: 40v (l. 18)-41r (l. 10); 9: 41r (l. 11-24); 10: 41r (l. 24)-41v (l. 27); 11: 41v (l. 28)-42r (l. 23); 12: 42r (l. 24)-42v (l. 16); 13: 42v (l. 16-24); 14: 42v (l. 25)-43r (l. 5).
The chapters are anonymous, apart from ch. 27 attributed to Hephaestion of Thebes: κζ Ἡφαιστίονος περὶ καταρχῶν (fols. 80r-v [l. 11]). The text began on a now lost folio but its title is given in the table of contents (fol. 2r). The chapters are rearranged excerpts from Heph., Apotel., III.5.3.57-60, III.41.5, III.5.56, ed. Pingree 1973, p. 247 (l. 3-13); 305 (l. 21-30); 246 (l. 26)-247 (l. 2). The other chapters are: κγ καταρχαὶ πρὸς τὰ ὅρια τῶν ἀστέρων πρὸς Κρόνον is followed by: κδ περὶ τοῦ ὑγιαίνει ἢ ἀρρωστεῖ (fol. 79r [l. 11-15]); πότε σύλληψις γίνεται (fol. 79r [l. 15-18]); κε περὶ τῆς φυσικῆς τῶν καταρχῶν ἐνεργείας (fols. 79r [l. 18]-79v); κη καθολικὰ παραγγέλματα (fols. 80v [l. 12]-82r [l. 18]); κθ ἐξ ὧν ἡ σελήνη καὶ οἱ ἀστέρες βλάπτονται [fols. 82r (l. 18)-83v (l. 5) = L, fols. 68v (l. 17)-69r (l. 15)]. The chapters are witnessed to in M, ch. ιε-ιζ together with chapters of Theoph. Apotel., and De in. var. (fols. 10r-38r, see CCAG, II, p. 16-18). The chapter πότε σύλληψις γίνεται is witnessed also in MS Paris, BnF, grec 2417, together with Theoph., <Apotel.>, 27, and Theoph., De in. var., 6.1-4.
The collection contains Theoph., De in. var., 5-12 and 19-30 (as indicated in the table of contents in T, fol. 106v); Theoph., De in. var., 1-2, 9-11, 13, 16, 20; 3-8, 12, 14-15 (as indicated in the table of contents in T, fols. 107r-v). The same treatise (ch. 1-20) can be read in L, fols. 69r (l. 16)-82v (l. 12) as well.
L, fol. 82v (l. 25-32).
F1: ed. CCAG, I, p. 138-139; L, fols. 84r (l. 16)-84v (l. 24), see László 2020, p. 6-11: 7.
Heph., Ep.2, III.0-III.1.6, ed. Pingree 1974, p. 81-83. For a comparison with the fragments contained in L, see also Olivieri 1898, p. 1-27 and infra, Appendix 2.
A heavily rewritten recension of Paul of Alexandria’s Elementa apotelesmatica, ch. 25 with marginal notes. The text arranges the chapter in a different order, see Boer 1958, p. 72-75. It runs as follows: (fols. 114v [l. 4]-115r [l. 5]) ⟨Paul of Alexandria, Elem. apotel.⟩, 25, ed. Boer 1958, p. 74 (l. 9)-75 (l. 5); (fols. 115r [l. 5]-115v [l. 3]) an anonymous text that mentions Heliodorus begins (l. 10: ὡς δὲ λέγει Ἡλιόδωρος ὅτι…); it refers to ⟨ps.-⟩Heliodorus, Comm., ch. 24, ed. Boer 1962, p. 78-83: 80 and quotes Paul verbatim, with some expansions; (fols. 115v [l. 6]-116v [l. 8]) ⟨Paul of Alexandria, Elem. apotel.⟩, 15, ed. Boer 1958, p. 72 (l. 17)-74 (l. 9). A final scholium on fols. 116v (l. 8)-117r (l. 10) can also be read in L, fol. 83v (l. 12-25).
Only ch. on fols. 117r (l. 11)-117v (l. 15); 118r (l. 5)-118v (l. 2) are attributed to ʾAbū Maʿšar in the manuscript, see Usener 1876, p. 21 n. 1-2 (incomplete transcription), and Farina 2022b, p. 233-234.
Ed. CCAG, VI, p. 79.
Heph., Apotel., III.2.6-12, ed. Pingree 1973, p. 229-230. It is witnessed to in L, fols. 83v (l. 35)-84r (l. 16) as well.
Details on this sequence of texts are as follows. Two short excerpts, the second of which contains a somewhat altered version of Ant. Pal. XIV, 70, which includes an oracle given by Serapis in the Serapeum in Alexandria [W, fol. 121r (l. 10-18)]: ὅτι πᾶς ἀστὴρ τὸν ἴδιον διαμετρoῦν οἶκον κακὸς ἐστὶν, ἑαυτὸν γὰρ ἐναντιοῦται. ὅτι φησὶν πάππος τίς θεοφιλὴς· ἄτυχον χρισμὸν (sic) εἴληφεν ἐν τῷ Σεραπίῳ Ἀλεξανδείας ὃς ἀπωδύρετο πενίαν· ὁ δὲ χρισμὸς (sic) οὕτως εἶχεν· ὁ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτῷ δοθεὶς Σαράπιδος· μὴ μέμφου μοιρεῖ, μὴ θεοὺς, μὴ δαίμονας· ὥρην δὲ Μέμφου ἣν πατὴρ ἔσπειρέ σε, see Paton 1918, p. 60-61 a for an English translation. An extract from the methodological scholia of Heliod. (?), In Ptol, Apotel., 30.2-4 (= Ptol., Tetr., 1.2.15) [W, fols. 121r (l. 18)-121v (l. 9)] which can also be read in L, fol. 32v (l. 20-26), ed. Caballero Sánchez 2013b, p. 238. Three anonymous short excerpts, ed. CCAG, I, p. 140 (l. 16-32), which are also contained in L, fol. 85r (l. 13-31) where they are organized in six fragments [W, fols. 121v (l. 9)-122r (l. 12)]. The last excerpt refers to the second exile of Patriarch Photius (886), ed. CCAG, I, p. 140 (l. 29-32), and Boll 1899b, p. 158. One anonymous excerpt quoting Ptol., Apotel., I.14, ed. Hübner 1998, p. 53 (l. 834)-53 (l. 839), fols. 122r (l. 12)-122v (l. 10).
For a description of the contents, see CCAG, VI, p. 22-25. The chapters included in the collection are mostly anonymous and yet to be identified. In the main text the identified texts are indicated.
Max., Paraph.1, I.8, 11, 6, and 9 (with two added paragraph at the end on fols. 128v [l. 15]-129r [l. 5]), and I.11, ed. Radici Colace 1988, p. 100-109, 119-121, 86-95, 108-111.
Heph., Ep.2, III, 27, ed. Pingree 1974, p. 124-125.
Theoph., De in. bell., ch. 41.
Heph., Apotel., III.8, ed. Pingree 1973, p. 259-260.
Heph., Ep.2, III.13-14, ed. Pingree 1974, p. 110-112 (= Doroth., Carmen, app. V.39, 1-40, ed. Pingree 1976, p. 419-420).
Heph., Apotel., III.23-24, ed. Pingree 1973, p. 276-277.
Ed. CCAG, VIII.1, p. 172-177. W pertains to the same recension of M and MS Paris, BnF, grec 2419 [diktyon 52051], fol. 69v.
Ed. CCAG, I, p. 171-172 (l. 20). The chapter is also contained in L, fols. 145r (l. 10)-145v (l. 12). On the text and its authorship, see Tolsa 2019, p. 1-4.
F14-F15: ed. CCAG, VI, p. 80 (l. 9-18 and 19-33), see László 2020, p. 6-11: 7.
In addition, on fols. 143v (l. 19)-145r (l. 10) one reads a chapter concerning how to find the rising of Sirius (περὶ τῆς τοῦ Κυνὸς ἐπιτολῆς) keyed to the era Menophres, which was computed under the reign of Romanus I Lecapenus (r. 919-944), see supra, n. 60.
One folio at the end is missing, the list ends with ch. 42: περὶ εὐθηνίας εἰδῶν καὶ κνιπείας ἀπὸ Σαρακηνῶν βιβλίου μέθοδοι αὗται μετεγράφησαν.
Ed. Boer 1962, p. 1-144.
Ed. Pingree 2004, p. 373-374, and supra, Section 3.
Ed. supra, Section 3.
Doroth., Carmen, app. IV 1, 5-9, lastly edited in Pingree 1976, p. 374, and supra, Section 3. See also supra, Section 1, n. 97.
Ed. supra, Section 3.
The text on fol. 227r is too fragmented to be read, even if an ἔτος ϛ[…] [μ]αΐου and a fragment of a thema are readable.
On the Greek manuscripts of Ogier Ghislain de Busbecq, see Gastgeber 2020, p. 145-181.
Lambeck’s description says: «Codex manuscriptus Philosophicus Grecus est chartaceus pervetustus, principio & fine mutilus, constatque nunc folijs ducentis viginti sex…», see Lambeck 1679, p. 255.
Whenever the correspondence between G and W is not indicated in the table, there is perfect correlation between the two MSS.
Omission of the reference to the “book of Julianus”.
Omission of the reference to the “black book”.
Omission of the reference to “Patriarch Photius”.
Omission of the reference to “Dorotheus”.
Haut de page