Interview with Dykes on Hephaistio and the origins of horary
Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:22 pm
A few days ago I did an interview with Ben Dykes about his new translation of book 3 of Hephaistio of Thebes for my podcast, and I wanted to post it here because we talked about several things that come up from time to time on the Skyscript forum, the most important of which is the origins of horary astrology.
Here is a link to the podcast interview:
http://theastrologypodcast.com/2013/12/ ... io-thebes/
The most important point is that as a result of this recent publication I no longer feel that it is accurate to say that horary astrology did not originate or exist in the early Hellenistic astrological tradition. There is one reference to horary in this text that makes it clear to me now that the concept of horary probably went back to at least the 1st century CE. While it does not look like horary had developed enough at this point so that it constituted an entire branch on its own, it seems clear from the one reference in this text that the idea did exist, and I can see how it is a logical extension of some of the rules that they were using for katarchic astrology at the time.
All of this is important and humbling for me since I published a paper in 2007 pointing out the scarcity of references to horary in the Hellenistic tradition, and arguing that as a result of that we had to conclude that horary astrology did not exist in the Hellenistic tradition. At this point I have to reverse that position and say that it did indeed exist as a concept.
What is a bit annoying about this for me, aside from the need to eat crow and admit that I was wrong here, is that I was always aware of this reference in the Hephaistio text. I had come across it when Schmidt and I cite read the text back in 2006 when I was doing the original research for the horary paper. But in the critical apparatus Pingree pointed out that one of the manuscript traditions excluded the reference to horary in the text, and I had been under the impression that this was a serious enough manuscript tradition to make it sufficiently uncertain whether we could treat this one reference to horary in Hephaistio as completely reliable. I mentioned this issue in a lecture at the history of astrology conference in London in 2008. Ben Dykes and Eduardo Gramaglia have addressed this issue in their translation, and I feel like they have made a compelling enough argument for the legitimacy of the manuscript tradition that contains the reference to horary that I can no longer maintain any viable arguments against it. This means that there really is one reference to horary in Hephaistio, and it matches the wording in the Arabic version of Dorotheus closely enough that it was originally in the Dorotheus text as well. Thus the concept of horary was starting to develop already by the 1st century.
We go into all of this in a bit more detail in the interview, and I wanted to post it here since I've engaged in discussions and debates about this issue here on Skyscript before, especially with Deb who has always maintained that horary did exist in the early Hellenistic tradition. While I think that we may still disagree about some references in other texts and whether they refer to horary or consultation charts or something else, I have to admit at this point that she was right about the existence of horary in the Hellenistic tradition.
I hope that this sparks some interesting and worthwhile discussion about these issues.
Here is a link to the podcast interview:
http://theastrologypodcast.com/2013/12/ ... io-thebes/
The most important point is that as a result of this recent publication I no longer feel that it is accurate to say that horary astrology did not originate or exist in the early Hellenistic astrological tradition. There is one reference to horary in this text that makes it clear to me now that the concept of horary probably went back to at least the 1st century CE. While it does not look like horary had developed enough at this point so that it constituted an entire branch on its own, it seems clear from the one reference in this text that the idea did exist, and I can see how it is a logical extension of some of the rules that they were using for katarchic astrology at the time.
All of this is important and humbling for me since I published a paper in 2007 pointing out the scarcity of references to horary in the Hellenistic tradition, and arguing that as a result of that we had to conclude that horary astrology did not exist in the Hellenistic tradition. At this point I have to reverse that position and say that it did indeed exist as a concept.
What is a bit annoying about this for me, aside from the need to eat crow and admit that I was wrong here, is that I was always aware of this reference in the Hephaistio text. I had come across it when Schmidt and I cite read the text back in 2006 when I was doing the original research for the horary paper. But in the critical apparatus Pingree pointed out that one of the manuscript traditions excluded the reference to horary in the text, and I had been under the impression that this was a serious enough manuscript tradition to make it sufficiently uncertain whether we could treat this one reference to horary in Hephaistio as completely reliable. I mentioned this issue in a lecture at the history of astrology conference in London in 2008. Ben Dykes and Eduardo Gramaglia have addressed this issue in their translation, and I feel like they have made a compelling enough argument for the legitimacy of the manuscript tradition that contains the reference to horary that I can no longer maintain any viable arguments against it. This means that there really is one reference to horary in Hephaistio, and it matches the wording in the Arabic version of Dorotheus closely enough that it was originally in the Dorotheus text as well. Thus the concept of horary was starting to develop already by the 1st century.
We go into all of this in a bit more detail in the interview, and I wanted to post it here since I've engaged in discussions and debates about this issue here on Skyscript before, especially with Deb who has always maintained that horary did exist in the early Hellenistic tradition. While I think that we may still disagree about some references in other texts and whether they refer to horary or consultation charts or something else, I have to admit at this point that she was right about the existence of horary in the Hellenistic tradition.
I hope that this sparks some interesting and worthwhile discussion about these issues.