Could our more well-read members please point me to the earliest preserved source/s for the Trutine of Hermes? Come to think of it, I'd be grateful for any ancient/medieval references, as I am interested in tracing the history of its development. Many thanks in advance!

(I know there is a previous thread on the Trutine, but as that is mixed up with the Animodar, and in any case does not really deal with the question of age/origins, I thought it better to start a new one.)

Martin Gansten wrote:Could our more well-read members please point me to the earliest preserved source/s for the Trutine of Hermes? Come to think of it, I'd be grateful for any ancient/medieval references, as I am interested in tracing the history of its development. Many thanks in advance!

I found between CieloeTerra things, now I don't remember where

Riess, Philologus Suppl.VI, 1892

it should between fragments of Petosiris-

is it for a new book?

margherita

Hello Martin,

I have read that two pupils of Berossus-Antipatrus and Achinapolus continued his astrological School on Cos and are reported as the first astrologers to experiment with the moment of conception rather than birth for the casting of a horoscope. They were from the period around 250 BCE.

Mark

Thanks, Margherita. I'll see if I can locate that. In the meantime, I'm still interested in other sources.

is it for a new book?

No, though it might conceivably (no pun intended) become an article if I find I have something new to say on it. Mostly it's personal interest: I happen to know for a fact that my daughter's birth ascendant is in the same degree as the moon when she was conceived (or rather, begotten), and it is quite possible that the ascendant degree was that of her natal moon. The length of the pregnancy is right, too. Rather too neat to be a coincidence, I would have thought, though a database of 1 is admittedly not very impressive...

MarkC wrote:I have read that two pupils of Berossus-Antipatrus and Achinapolus continued his astrological School on Cos and are reported as the first astrologers to experiment with the moment of conception rather than birth for the casting of a horoscope. They were from the period around 250 BCE.

Thanks, Mark. Would you happen to remember the source for that?

Thanks, Mark. Would you happen to remember the source for that?

mmmm I have a hunch it was in the Roman writer Vitruvius as he says a bit about Berossus. I will post up the relevant quote if I find it there.

So is this a newish arrival to the Gansten clan? Congratulations if so!

Mark

Hi Martin

I'm trying to remember something useful, but everything I ever learned about anything has currently left me as a battle for the second day with a new (expensive) printer which refuses to print anything other than its own factory settings. Not a good situation for someone who borders on obsessive compulsive disorder and will soon have the entire computer system dismantled and destroyed. Hope to get back to you later - although it may be that when I do, it will be about as much good to you as this wireless (read 'useless') printer.

Deb

Mark: thanks, but no, she recently turned 10, so it was a while ago.

Deb: ouch! My sympathies; I'm all too familiar with printer problems. Do let me know if anything occurs to you (other than smashing the machine up).

Hi Martin,

I join to the others who have already had some hints.

It is Petosiris indeed who is among first ones discussing the question of conception and whose fragments are collected as fr. 14 in Riess' edition (Philologus Supplementband 6 [1892], p. 358). He says that the sign position of the Moon at birth will show the place of the ascendent at conception and the sign position of the ascendent at birth or its opposition will show the place of the Moon at conception. The opinion of Petosiris was originally reported in Antiochus 21, where all the surviving sources are derived: Porphyry 38 (= fr. 14a Riess) and from him Hephaestio II 1, 2 (= fr. 14b Riess) and III 10, 5 (= fr. 14c Riess). Antiochus used to discuss about another approach in the same chapter; this is also utilized by Porphyry, and in a much more detailed fashion in Hephaestio II 1-2, who also cites Antigonus and Anubio (fr. 2 Obbink).

Nevertheless, the roots of these theories are more ancient. The middle gestation period of 273 and a third days, which is described by Hephaestio, seem to have appeared already in a Babylonian genethliacal omen from 258 BC. It was (re)published by Francesca Rochberg as Text 7 (Babylonian Horoscopes, Philadelphia 1998, pp. 73-76).

Proclus in his Commentaries on Timaeus of Plato (vol. 2, p. 59 Kroll) cites not only Petosiris and the Egyptians but also (Pseudo-)Zoroaster. This latter is quoted again (vol. 2, p. 34). These fragments, which come from On Nature by Pseudo-Zoroaster, are labelled fr. O 14 and O 15a in Bidez?Cumont (Les mages hell?nises, Paris 1938, pp. 162-163). The work itself may have been written in 3rd century BC according to Pingree (Yavanaj?taka, Cambridge 1978, p. 445).

Finally, there is the Vitruvius passage (IX 6, 2) where it is said that the students of Berosus (who may have lived in early 3rd century), Antipater and another one, whose name looks corrupt in manuscripts (most of them brings Achinapolus, while Scletstatensis 1153bis gives Archinapolus), explained genethliacal issues from the conception.

If Pingree is right in asserting that the Petosiris passage belongs to the group of astral omen texts circulating under the name of Nechepso and Petosiris, which were written in 2nd century BC (DSB Pseudo-Petosiris), then the Babylonian theories that appeared not later than 3nd century BC were utilized in various pseudepigrapha, including those summoning Babylonian (Berosus and his students), Persian (Zoroaster) and Egyptian (Petosiris) authorities. Later on, these theories took place in astrological genethlialogy itself, as Antiochus, Valens (I 21-22, III 10 and IX 14), the Yavanaj?taka (5, 19), Porphyry, Hephaestio and Rhetorius (Epitome IV 23 in CCAG 2.186-187) shows.

Levente

Hi Martin
It seems such a meagre offering after Levente's post, but since you are also looking at its development over time you might want to look at Ibn Ezra's Book of Nativities and Revolutions (I Have Meira Epstein's translation; p.8-12). He calls the technique "The Equations of Enoch" but Rob Hand states in a footnote that references to Hermes in the Latin are given to Enoch in the Hebrew, so these are essentially the same figures.
(Order is restored - my printer is working!)
Deb

Osthanes, your knowledge and references of original source texts from the olden times is incredible! And much appreciated, I'm sure, not only by myself but also by the Skyscript readership in general. Thank you!

Levente: thank you very much indeed! I will hunt for as many of these references as possible. Riess seems almost impossible to find: there is a copy in the Royal Library some 600 km away from here, but they are not letting it out of their sight. If you (or anyone else reading this) have it at hand and could let me have a scan of p. 358, please let me know by PM.

Later on, these theories took place in astrological genethlialogy itself, as Antiochus, Valens (I 21-22, III 10 and IX 14), the Yavanaj?taka (5, 19), Porphyry, Hephaestio and Rhetorius (Epitome IV 23 in CCAG 2.186-187) shows.

When you say Yavanaj?taka (5, 19), do you mean chapters 5 and 19, or chapter 5, verse 19? Only chapter 5 deals with conception, but I don't see the particular significance of verse 19 -- unless Pingree's translation is off; I haven't got the Sanskrit text at hand. The only definite Indian reference I have found to the trutine so far comes (not surprisingly) from a t?jika text (Indianized Perso-Arabic astrology).