[1] This is the beginning of the Mt. Athos MS., the first pages having disappeared. With regard to the first chapter περὶ ἀστρολόγων, Cruice, following therein Miller, points out that nearly the whole of it has been taken from Book V with the same title of Sextus Empiricus’ work, Πρὸς Μαθηματικούς, and also that the copying is so faulty that to make sense it is necessary to restore the text in many places from that of Sextus. Sextus’ book begins, as did doubtless that of Hippolytus, with a description of the divisions of the zodiac, the cardinal points (Ascendant, Mid-heaven, Descendant, and Anti-Meridian), the cadent and succeedent houses, the use of the clepsydra or water-clock, the planets and their “dignities,” “exaltations” and “falls,” and finally, their “terms,” with a description of which our text begins. It is, perhaps, a pity that Miller did not restore the whole of the missing part from Sextus Empiricus; but the last-named author is not very clear, and the reader who wishes to go further into the matter and to acquire some knowledge of astrological jargon is recommended to consult also James Wilson’s Complete Dictionary of Astrology, reprinted at Boston, U.S.A., in 1885, or, if he prefers a more learned work, M. Bouché-Leclercq’s L’Astrologie Grecque, Paris, 1899. But it may be said here that the astrologers of the early centuries made their predictions from a “theme,” or geniture, which was in effect a map of the heavens at the moment of birth, and showed the ecliptic or sun’s path through the zodiacal signs divided into twelve “houses,” to each of which a certain significance was attached. The foundation of this was the horoscope or sign rising above the horizon at the birth, from which they were able to calculate the other three cardinal points given above, the cadent houses being those four which go just before the cardinal points and the four succeedents those which follow after them. The places of the planets, including in that term the sun and moon, in the ecliptic were then calculated and their symbols placed in the houses indicated. From this figure the judgment or prediction was made, but a great mass of absurd and contradictory tradition existed as to the influence of the planets on the life, fortune, and disposition of the native, which was supposed to depend largely on their places in the theme both in relation to the earth and to each other.

[2] Bouché-Leclercq, op. cit., p. 206, rightly defines these terms as fractions of signs separated by internal boundaries and distributed in each sign among the five planets. Cf. J. Firmicus Maternus, Matheseos, II, 6, and Cicero, De Divinatione, 40. Wilson, op. cit., s.h.v., says they are certain degrees in a sign, supposed to possess the power of altering the nature of a planet to that of the planet in the term of which it is posited. All the authors quoted say that the astrologers could not agree upon the extent or position of the various “terms,” and that in particular the “Chaldæans” and the “Egyptians” were hopelessly at variance upon the point.

[3] In the translation I have distinguished Miller’s additions to the text from Sextus Empiricus’ by enclosing them in square brackets, reserving the round brackets for my own additions from the same source, which I have purposely made as few as possible. So with other alterations.

[4] δορυφορεῖσθαι, lit., “have spear-bearers.” “Stars” in Sextus Empiricus nearly always means planets.

[5] This is the famous “trine” figure or aspect of modern astrologers. Its influence is supposed to be good; that of the square next described, the reverse.

[6] Hippolytus here omits a long disquisition by Sextus on the position of the planets and the Chaldæan system. Where the text resumes the quotation it is in such a way as to alter the sense completely; wherefore I have restored the sentence preceding from Sextus.

[7] συμπάσχει, “suffer with.”

[8] τὸ περίεχον. The term used by astrologers to denote the whole æther surrounding the stars or, in other words, the whole disposition of the heavens. “Ambient” is its equivalent in modern astrology.

[9] This is an anticipation of the Peratic heresy to which a chapter in Book V (pp. 146 ff. infra) is devoted. Ἀκεμβὴς is there spelt Κελβὴς, but Ἀκεμβὴς is restored in Book X and is copied by Theodoret. “Peratic” is thought by Salmon (D.C.B., s.h.v.) to mean “Mede.”

[10] “Toparch” means simply “ruler of a place.” Proastius (προάστιος) generally the dweller in a suburb. Here it probably means the powers in some part of the heavens which is near to a place or constellation without actually forming part of it.

[11] νενομισμένα. Cf. νενομισμένως, “in the established manner,” Callistratus, Ecphr., 897.

[12] τῶς πρακτικῶν λόγων, or, perhaps, “of the systems used.”

[13] ἀσύστατον, lit., “not holding together,” punningly used as epithet for both the art and the heresy.

[14] What follows to the concluding paragraph of Chap. 7 is taken nearly verbatim from Sextus Empiricus.

[15] For these terms see n. on p. 67 supra.

[16] ὡροσκόπιον seems here put for ὡροσκοπεῖον = horologium, or clock.

[17] ἀπότεξις, “the bringing-forth” is the word used by Sextus throughout. As Sextus was a medical man it is probably the technical term corresponding to our “parturition.” Miller reads ἀποτάξις which does not seem appropriate.

[18] διάθεμα. See n. on p. 67 supra.

[19] I have here followed Sextus’ division of the sentence. Cruice translates στέαρ, farina aqua subacta, for which I can see no justification. Macmahon here follows him.

[20] Restoring from Sextus οἴχεται for ἦρται.

[21] ὡροσκόπον, “the ascending sign.” So Sextus.

[22] Restoring from Sextus ἐφ’ ἑκάστου for ἐν ἑκάστῳ; τὸν ἀκριβῆ for τὸ ἀκριβὲς and omitting καταλαβέσθαι.

[23] See n. on p. 74 infra.

[24] Sextus has described earlier (p. 342, Fabricius) the whole process of warning the astrologer of the moment of birth by striking a metal disc, which I have called “gong.”

[25] ἀορίστου τυγχανούσης.

[26] ἐν πλείονι χρόνῳ καὶ ἐν συχνῷ πρὸς αἴσθησιν δυνάμενον μερίζεσθαι, majori et longiori temporis spatio ad aurium sensum dividatur, Cr.; “with proportionate delay,” Macmahon. I do not understand how either his or Cruice’s construction is arrived at.

[27] Sextus has “on the hills.”

[28] ὡροσκοποῦντος might mean “which marks the hour.”

[29] φαίνεται ... ἀλλοιότερον ... διάθεμα.

[30] quam diligenter observari possit in coelo nativitas, Cr., (before) “the nativity can be carefully observed in the sky.”

[31] γένεσις. The word in Greek astrological works has the same meaning as “geniture” or “nativity” in modern astrological jargon. Identical with “theme.”

[32] The whole of this sentence is corrupt, and the scribe was probably taking down something from Sextus which was read to him without his understanding it. I have given what seems to be the sense of the passage.

[33] ὑδρίαι, Sextus (p. 342, Fabr.), has described the clepsydra or water-clock and its defects as a measurer of time.

[34] ἐν πλάτει.

[35] τὰ ἀποτελέσματα. A technical expression for the results or influence on sublunary things of the position of the heavenly bodies. Cf. Bouché-Leclercq, op. cit., p. 328, n. 1.

[36] Sextus adds παγίως, “positively.”

[37] οἱ μαθηματικοί. The only passage in our text where Hippolytus uses the word in this sense. He seems to have taken it from Sextus’ title κατὰ τὸν μαθηματικὸν λόγον.

[38] A play of words upon Λέω and ἀνδρεῖος.

[39] σπουδῆς. Hippolytus inserts an unnecessary οὐ before the word. See Sextus, p. 355.

[40] οἰκειώσεως χάριν, gratia consuetudinis, Cr.

[41] Does this refer to Otho’s encouragement by the astrologer Ptolemy to rebel against Galba? See Tacitus, Hist., I, 22. The sentence does not appear in Sextus.

[42] Sextus says 9977 years.

[43] φθάσει συνδραμεῖν, “arrive at concurrence with.” Sextus answers the question in the negative.

[44] Here the quotations from Sextus end.

[45] παρ’ ἔθνεσι “among the nations.” A curious expression in the mouth of a Greek, although natural to a Jew.

[46] Is this an allusion to trigonometry? The rest of the sentence, as will presently be seen, refers to Plato’s Timæus. Cf. also Timæus the Locrian, c. 5.

[47] Διὸ τοῖς ἐπιτόμοις χρησάμενος. An indication that Hippolytus’ knowledge of Plato was not first-hand.

[48] The passage which follows is from the Timæus, XII, where Plato describes how the World-maker set in motion two concentric circles revolving different ways, the external called the Same and Like, and the internal the Other, or Different.

[49] This seems to be generally accepted as Plato’s meaning. Jowett says the three are the orbits of the Sun, Venus and Mercury, the four those of the Moon, Saturn, Mars and Jupiter. The Wanderers are of course the planets.

[50] i. e., swifter and slower.

[51] ἐπιφανεία.

[52] Perhaps the following extract from the pseudo-Timæus the Locrian, now generally accepted as a summary of the second century, may make this clearer. After explaining that the cosmos and its parts are divided into “the Same” and “the Different,” he says: “The first of these leads from without all that are within them, along the general movement from East to West. But the latter, belonging to the Different, lead from within the parts that are carried along from West to East, and are self-moved, and they are whirled round and along, as it may happen, by the movement of the Same which possesses in the Cosmos a superior power. Now the movement of the Different, being divided according to a harmonical proportion, takes the form of 7 circles,” and he then goes on to describe the orbits of the planets.

[53] Lit., “if one section be severed.”

[54] Cf. Plato, Timæus, c. 12.

[55] A palpable mistake. As Cruice points out, if the Earth’s diameter is as said in the text, its perimeter must be 251,768 stadia, which is not far from the 252,000 stadia assigned to it by Eratosthenes.

[56] Lacunæ in both these sentences.

[57] The common Greek name for the planet Ares or Mars (♂).

[58] All these numbers are hopelessly corrupt in the text and the scribe varies the notation repeatedly. I have given the figures as finally settled by Cruice and his predecessors. The Shining One is the planet Hermes or Mercury (☿).

[59] βάθη, “depths”; rather height if we consider the orbits of the planets as concentric and fitting into one another like jugglers’ caps or the skins of an onion.

[60] ἐν λόγοις συμφώνοις. Cruice would read τόνοις for λόγοις on the strength of what Pliny, Hist. Nat., II, 20, says about Pythagoras having taught that the intervals between the planets’ orbits were musical tones. He seems to mean the gamut or chromatic scale as contrasted with the enharmonic.

[61] See last note.

[62] See note on p. 81 infra as to what this doubling and tripling means.

[63] συμφωνίᾳ.

[64] ἐπιτετάρτῳ, superquarta, Cr., 1 + ¼; see Liddell and Scott, quoting Nicomachus Gerasenus Arithmeticus.

[65] It is not easy to see from this confused statement whether it is the system of Plato or Archimedes at which Hippolytus is aiming. The one, however, that it most resembles is that of the neo-Pythagoreans, of which the following table is given in M. Bigourdan’s excellent work on L’Astronomie: Evolution des Idées et des Méthodes, Paris 1911, p. 49:—

[66] The object of all these figures is apparently to prove that those of Archimedes are wrong and that the Platonic theory—said, one does not know with what truth, to have been inherited from Pythagoras, viz., that the intervals between the orbits of the different bodies of the cosmos are arranged like the notes on a musical scale—is to be preferred. This was perhaps to be expected from a Churchman as favouring the doctrine of creation by design. It is difficult at first sight to see how the figures in the text bear out Hippolytus’ contention, inasmuch as the distances here given of the seven planets (including therein the Sun and Moon) from the Earth proceed in an irregular kind of arithmetical progression ranging from one to fifty-four, the distance from the Earth to the Moon which Hippolytus accepts from Archimedes as correct being taken as unity. Thus, let us call this unit of distance x, and we have the table which follows:—

Table I (of distances)

But let us take the figures given in the text for the intervals between the Earth and the seven “planets” arranged in the same order, and again taking the Earth to Moon distance as unity, we have:—

Table II (of intervals)

This agrees almost entirely with the theory which M. Bigourdan in the work mentioned in the last note has worked out as the Platonic theory of the distances of the different planets from the Earth, “the supposed centre of their movements” (p. 228). Thus:—

which distances are, in his own words, “les termes enchevêtrés de deux progressions géométriques ayant respectivement pour raison 2 et 3, savoir 1, 2, 4, 8—1, 3, 9, 27; on voit que l’unité est, comme chez Pythagore, la distance de la Terre à la Lune.” This conclusion is amply borne out by Hippolytus’ figures, which, as given in Table II above, show a regular progression from 2 and 3 to 2² and 3², then to 2³ and 3³, which explains what our author means by increasing the Earth to the Moon distance, κατὰ τὰ διπλάσιον καὶ τριπλάσιον. The only discrepancy between this and M. Bigourdan’s table is that he has transposed the distances between ☿—♂ and ♂—♄ respectively; but as I do not know the details of the calculation on which he bases his figures, I am unable to say whether the mistake is his or Hippolytus’.

[67] Are we to conclude from this that these last calculations are those of Claudius Ptolemy, the author of the Almagest? He has certainly not been mentioned before, but his fame was so great that Hippolytus may have been certain that the allusion would be understood by his audience. Ptolemy lived, perhaps, into the last quarter of the second century.

[68] Genesis vi. 4. The subject seems to have had irresistible fascination for Christian converts of Asiatic blood, whether orthodox or heretic. Manes also wrote a book upon the Giants, cf. Kessler, Mani, Berlin, 1899, pp. 191 ff.

[69] Hippolytus seems to have been entirely ignorant that the calculations he derides were anything but mere guesswork. They were not only singularly accurate considering the imperfection of the observations at the disposal of their author, but have also been of the greatest use to science as laying the foundation of all future astronomy.

[70] ἀμέτρους. Another pun on their measurements.

[71] Nothing definite is known of this Colarbasus or his supposed astrological heresy. The accounts given of him by Irenæus and Epiphanius describe him as holding tenets identical with those of Marcus. Hort, following Baur, believes that he never existed, and that his name is simply a Greek corruption of Qol arba, “the Voice of the Four.” See D.C.B., s.h.v.

[72] περὶ μαθηματικῶν. The article is omitted; but he must mean the students and not the study. This is curious, because Mathematicus in the Rome of Hippolytus must have meant astrologer and nothing else, and what follows has nothing to do with astrology. Rather is it what was called in the Renaissance Arithmomancy. Cruice refers us to Athanasius Kircher’s Arithmologia on the subject. Cornelius Agrippa, De vanitate et incertitudine Scientiarum, writes of it as “The Pythagorean lot,” and it is described in Gaspar Peucer’s De præcipuis Divinationum generibus, 1604.

[73] ψῆφοι, lit., pebbles, i. e. counters.

[74] στοιχεῖα: letters as the component parts or elements of words.

[75] Reading with the text τινὰς for Cruice’s τινὰ.

[76] In the text the Kappa and Tau are written at full length, the other numbers in the usual Greek notation, a proof that the scribe was here writing from dictation and not copying MS.

[77] ψηφισθὲν.

[78] The name is spelt Πάτροκλος.

[79] So that the “root” may be either 7 or 6 according as you use the “rule of 9” or of 7. A reductio ad absurdum.

[80] ἐὰν ἀπαρτίσῃ, “is even or complete.”

[81] I omit the Rho, which in the Codex precedes the Alpha. Cruice suggests it is put for Π.

[82] They do not, but make 26. Cruice adds an Alpha between the 8 and the 3: but in any case the rule just enunciated is broken by the reckoning in of two 2’s.

[83] Αἴας. Α = 1, ι = 10 = 1, α = 1 (omitted), ς = 200 = 2. 1 + 1 + 2 = 4.

[84] The Homeric name for Paris.

[85] κύριον ὄνομα as opposed to μεταφορὸν ὄνομα, a name transferred from one to another, or family name.

[86] Not 8 but 4. ο = 70 = 7, δ = 4, υ = 400 = 4, σ = 200 = 2, ε = 5 (with duplicate omitted) = 22, which divided by 9 leaves 4, or by 7, only 1. The next sentence and a similar remark at the last sentence but one of the chapter are probably by a commentator or scribe and have slipped into the text by accident. Oddly enough, nothing is said as to what happens if the “roots” are equal, as they seem to be in this case.

[87] Another mistake. Α = 1, σ = 200 = 2, τ = 300 = 3, ε = 5, ρ = 100 = 1, ο = 70 = 7, π = 80 = 8, ι = 10 = 1 (with duplicates omitted) = 28, which divided by 9 leaves 1, or by 7, 0 = 7.

[88] ὅταν μέντοι δευτερόν τινες ἀγωνίζωνται. Quum vero quidam iterum decertant de numeris, Cr. But the allusion is almost certainly to two charioteers or combatants meeting in successive contests. Half the divination and magic of the early centuries refers to the affairs of the circus, and the text has nothing about de numeris.

[89] Lit., inspection of the forehead (or face), or what Lavater called physiognomy. The word was known to Ben Jonson, who uses it in his Alchymist. “By a rule, Captain. In metoposcopy, which I do work by. A certain star in the forehead which you see not,” etc.

[90] ἰδέας.

[91] I have not thought it worth while to set down the various readings suggested by the different editors and translators for these “forms and qualities.” The whole of this chapter is taken from Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos, and was corrupted by every copyist. The common type suggested with eyebrows meeting over the nose is plainly Alexandrian, as we know from the portraits on mummy-cases in Ptolemaic times.

[92] κοπιαταὶ. The dictionaries give “grave-digger,” which makes no sense.

[93] ὀφθαλμοῖς μέλασιν ὡς ἠλειμμένοις, “eyes black as if oiled.” Not a bad description of the eyes of a certain type of Levantine.

[94] The text has κολυμβῶσιν, which must refer to the eyes.

[95] Yet he twice calls them ψεῦσται, or “cheats.”

[96] Miller thinks this last characteristic interpolated.

[97] Reading λευκῷ for ἀλυκῷ, “salt,” which seems impossible.

[98] Reading ὑποδούλιοι for ὑπόδουλοι.

[99] Is any one born with grey hair?

[100] οἱ αὐτοὶ φύσεως. A similar phrase has just occurred under the same sign: a proof of the utter corruption of the text.

[101] ὀρχησταί in codex. Probably a mistake for εἰς κοινωνίαν εὔχρηστοι, “useful to the community.”

[102] δι’ ἐπινοίας; probably a sarcasm.

[103] It is hardly necessary to point out the futility of this astrology, its base being the theory that the earth is the centre of the universe. Nearly all the characteristics given above have, however, less to do with the stars than with those supposed to distinguish the different animals named. This is really sympathetic magic, or what was later called “the signatures of things.”

[104] A lacuna in the text here extending to the opening words of the next chapter.

[105] Richard Ganschinietz, in a study on Hippolytus’ Capitel gegen die Magier appearing in Gebhardt’s and Harnack’s Texte und Untersuchungen, dritte Reihe Bd. 9, Leipzig, 1913, says it is not doubtful that Hippolytus took this chapter from Celsus’ book κατὰ μάγων, which he discovers in Origen’s work against the last-named author. He assumes that Lucian of Samosata in his Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ Ψευδόμαντις borrowed from the same source.

[106] τῶν δαιμόνων, a demonibus, Cr. But the word δαίμων is hardly ever used in classic or N.T. Greek for a devil or evil spirit, generally called δαιμόνιον. Δαίμων here and elsewhere in this chapter plainly means a god of lesser rank or spirit. Cf. Plutarch de Is. et Os., cc. 25-30.

[107] τῷ παιδὶ, the magician’s assistant necessary in all operations requiring confederacy or hypnotism.