I am quite confused by Robert Schmidt's statement on the Project Hindsight site:

''To date, there is no good evidence that Horary astrology was practiced during the Hellenistic era. This kind of astrology attempts to answer a given question for a client by constructing the chart for the moment that the question was asked.''

I appreciate that Robert Schmidt has translated many of the early astrological texts such as Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. However, how can he sustain this statement?

Surely we have clear evidence to the contrary? For example the Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus of Sidon seems to indicate Horary or Katarchic astrology being practised in the first century AD.

This also raises the issue of what time frame people are talking about when they use the phrase 'hellenistic astrology'. Is the end of that era the Roman conquest of Greece, the fall of the Western Empire or the fall of Byzantium?

Hi Mark,

Schmidt considers that the evidence of horary astrology we have from such authors as Dorotheus and Paulus are later interpolations and that these authors did no horary. This sort of stuff (interpolations) happened quite a bit. In an article a few years back, Deb questioned some datings when she saw that Dorotheus mentioned Vettius Valens. This was chronologically impossible with the dating of the two authors. I believe that it is generally agreed that the comments about Valens were later interpolations. It is believed by some that other parts of Dorotheus were also not written by him but included by later translators. I am not sure what Schmidt bases his arguments on or whether he is correct. I seem to recall that the first real horary chart we have is considered to be dated from the 400's, which is quite late. I don't have access to my books to check this right now and I could be out in my dating.

The issue of how to determine exactly what the Hellenistic period was is a tricky one and is actually different from the term Hellenism. There are various dates but generally. as a rough guide, if we are talking about the Greek Hellenistic period, it relates to the period that commenced during or at the end of the reign of Alexander and concluded at the reign of Augustus. Modern historians often see the end as the defeat of Ptolemaic Egypt after which Cleopatra committed suicide and Augustus annexed her empire. The trouble is that these dates can be quite arbitrary and somewhat anachronistic. I'm not quite sure what Schmidt is referring to here when he speaks of the Hellenistic era. Hellenism as a term was not in use until the 1600's and basically describes the flow of Greek culture into the Roman Empire and other places. Naturally, there was no cut off date and influences of one era flowed into another. I am not sure whether he is talking specifically of the historical time period (in which case is pre Dorotheus or Paulus)or whether he is describing Hellenistic influence, which is very heavy over many centuries. Schmidt advocates that Hellenistic astrology was developed wholly as a construct by one person or a small number of people who were directly influenced by Greek thought rather than as a continuation of Babylonian influence. I can't remember exactly what time period he specified but I think it might have been around the last century before the common era or the first century of the common era.

On his website, Robert Schmidt says:

We will also use the term Hellenistic to describe the astrology of the Roman and early Byzantine period, even though technically much of it lies outside the Hellenistic era proper.

http://www.projecthindsight.com/article ... istic.html

I did raise the issue of the dating of Dorotheus, because it was originally considered a 1st century BC text, but the references to Vettius Valens made that impossible. It?s now generally assumed that the majority of the text is of the 1st or 2nd century CE, (many of the fragments survive in Greek), though including extracts from older works and having interpolations from later authors. Robert Schmidt says of this:

Bk V is the primary source of Hellenistic katarchic astrology (electional/horary).

It?s hard to reconcile that with the comment at the start of this thread, and I don?t think anyone has suggested that we dismiss the whole of the 5th book as an interpolation.

In addition we have the chart of 479 AD (reproduced at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/shippalchus.html ), which shouldn?t be thought of as one of the earliest horaries but as one of the earliest surviving horaries. We should always bear in mind that for every chart that has survived, there were probably hundreds and thousands that didn't survive.

It is also understood that the ancient origins of astrology had a strong divinational basis ? the earliest references of it being used as a predictive tool show that it was used to elect fortunate times to act and to get guidance from the gods as to whether a proposed course of action was appropriate. Natal astrology, on the other hand, is considered to be a relatively late development. So my answer to the question ?how old is horary? is that no one knows for sure, but the roots of horary and electional astrology are so intertwined with the roots of astrology itself, that it would have be logical to consider it one of the oldest branches of astrology.

Actually, Robert Schmidt has suggested that most of the fifth book was not written by Dorotheus and that there is no evidence that horary astrology existed at that time. I'm not agreeing with him just saying that this is what he said. I will try to find the reference and post it.

Hi Sue

That would be good. I'm interested to hear what he has to say about chap 5, and his arguments as to why he believes its an interpolation.

Unfortunately, I cannot find the reference at this point but I will keep trying. What Schmidt said a couple of years ago was that there is no evidence that horary astrology was practised in Hellenistic times and that the only Greek reference to horary astrology is from Dorotheus. He pointed out that there are no full extant manuscripts of Dorotheus and there are clearly several interpolations in what we do have. I think he refers to these manuscripts as something along the lines of corrupt Arabic translations. He finds the horary references in Dorotheus suspect.

Tom might be able to help out here because I recall him mentioning this on another forum quite some time ago. He might have more information or be able to lay his hands on a reference.

Without knowing Schmidt?s arguments I probably shouldn?t comment on his view of Dorotheus. But certainly the style, techniques and terminology of the 5th book does not seem to me to stand apart from the rest of the book. If there were references to Arabic sources it would be a different matter, but the text of Dorotheus is presumed to be a translation of his work, incorporating references to Valens and other ancient authors such as Hephaestio ? I?m not aware of any noted interpolations that discredit its value as an essentially classical text.

If we?re talking about the Hellenistic period ?proper?, my understanding is that we have very few examples of practical Greek astrology of any branch, to allow us to make such judgements. If we?re talking about classical astrology in general, or the Greek, Roman and early Byzantine period, then how can we discount the literary references of the time, that moan about the overuse of astrology amongst the populace to determine such questions as who will win the chariot race? They complain of some people not even wanting to bathe without consulting what the stars have to say. Horary was street-level astrology and the picture we are given from historians is that it was rife and rampant in Rome, as it had been for the Babylonians.

I?m not suggesting that it was the same format and approach as we find in later works, but that the roots of horary pass through and beyond the classical period - that they drew up charts for times of concern or to gain divinatory guidance, or for the commencement of activities to predict the results of them.

I'm not sure that he was suggesting the whole of the fifth book was an interpolation. That may have been an exaggeration on my part. However, he is saying that the horary may not have been from Dorotheus. My understanding is that the references to Vettius Valens did not come from Dorotheus but were a later addition and the horary may well have been a later addition.

If we?re talking about classical astrology in general, or the Greek, Roman and early Byzantine period, then how can we discount the literary references of the time, that moan about the overuse of astrology amongst the populace to determine such questions as who will win the chariot race? They complain of some people not even wanting to bathe without consulting what the stars have to say.

Yes, Cicero was one of these people. His book 'De Divinatione' (1st century BCE) is a very interesting read by someone who thinks its all a load of bunkum arguing with his brother who is a believer.

Horary was street-level astrology and the picture we are given from historians is that it was rife and rampant in Rome, as it had been for the Babylonians.

I suspect, but don't really know, that the issue here might be terminology. Schmidt says that by horary he means the specific asking of a clear and specific question at a given time where the chart is drawn up for that time. This might make it more difficult to pinpoint specific examples earlier on in the time period Schmidt is dealing with but, like you, I have a difficult time accepting that there is no evidence for this sort of astrology throughout what he defines as the Hellenistic period. One of the interesting things I have been looking at lately is the argument about the prediction made by Spurinna about the upcoming assassination of Julius Caesar. This is a well known prediction, thanks to Shakespeare, called 'beware the Ides of March.' It had generally been considered that this prediction had been made in the most common way of the use of haruspicy, i.e. examining animal entrails. However, Cramer argued that it was most definitely a prediction made by way of astrology. Academics have been arguing backwards and forwards ever since. One academic argued incorrectly that it couldn't possibly be astrology because this was long before astrology came into its own in the Roman Empire. Unfortunately, someone who argued strongly for the fact that it was an astrological prediction, Michael Molnar, got many of his facts wrong. Trouble is, of course, that we can't know for sure because there is no chart. But since such things as the use of animal entrails, birds, thunder, etc. are all built around that 'moment in time' of questioning, I find it hard to believe that this did not carry across to astrology.

This has now got me interested so I will have to look at it more closely.

Tom might be able to help out here because I recall him mentioning this on another forum quite some time ago. He might have more information or be able to lay his hands on a reference.

Sorry I don't have anything that wasn't cited above. My recollection is that Schmidt's position is based on absense of evidence. In other words, until there is hard evidence that horary existed in whatever he believes is the Hellenistic period, he thinks we have to say that horary may not have existed. But as the old saw goes, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."

Deb's point that horary is divinitory, and that the earliest astrology was divinitory, therefore it is likely that horary is among the oldest of techniques, makes a great deal of sense, it's just at this time there may not be conclusive evidence of horary's antiquity. It is hard to believe that astrology developed from a divinitory system, to the more concrete Greek natal system then back to the divinitory horary and elections. That's probably not impossible, but it seems out of synch.

Tom

Thanks Tom. I think if we (as in the general populace we, not the we on this list) are to keep debating this point, we would need some fairly strict parameters in place. We would all need to agree on time period and most importantly, what we mean by horary astrology.

But, like Deb, I would like to know why Schmidt calls into question the authenticity of the horary section of Dorotheus. If it is based solely on the fact that he is the only Greek author to mention horary then surely this is not enough. Dorotheus may well have been the only one of the authors of this time to be interested. Ptolemy, Vettius Valens, Manilius, etc. were interested in other things.

I think philology is a fascinating area and one that has brought to light some interesting facts around authorship and dating of ancient texts. It would be interesting to know whether something like this has been done on the work of Dorotheus.

It is hard to believe that astrology developed from a divinitory system, to the more concrete Greek natal system then back to the divinitory horary and elections. That's probably not impossible, but it seems out of synch.

Yes, it is hard to believe. But only if you accept Schmidt?s assertion that the Greeks, or a Greek, fully developed astrology as a mathematical construct sometime in the first or second century of the common era, which I don?t. Whether we call it horary or not, there is ample evidence that astrologers in the Hellenistic period practised divinatory astrology, attempting to predict the future.

We would all need to agree on time period and most importantly, what we mean by horary astrology.

As for a time period maybe this will help. Schmidt gave a talk 'The Problem of Astrology," which was subsequently transcribed and posted on the web. What follows is from that:

The best evidence seems to indicate that astrology began with the Babylonians some time during or before the 5th c. .B.C.E. It quickly spread to Egypt, Persia and India. Around 200 B.C.E. the astrology developing in Egypt was translated into Greek and made available to the Mediterranean peoples, resulting in a tremendous flowering of astrology during the Hellenistic era that lasted up until the 6th century C.E.

OK we have at least an end date that Schmidt uses. If we accept that date then we can use the generally accepted beginning of the Hellenistic era as the time of Alexander the great 356 - 323 BC. We're looking at about an 800 year period. Astrology was introduced to the Greeks about 100 years after Alexander.

I cannot find Schmidt's reference to horary in anything I have. I may have missed it when I skimmed the papers in my desk, or it may be elsewhere. Perhaps he will go into detail when the long awaited publications come out (supposedly this month but we've heard that before).

Tom

I don't have a particular problem with that dating but I would not go any later. Certainly, most scholars agree that the Hellenistic period began with Alexander. But, then, if Schmidt is saying that there is no evidence of horary astrology during that period, he is clearly wrong. As Deb said earlier, we have an extant horary from the 5th century. And, as she also points out, this is one that survived, not the only one there was necessarily.

I have a hard time reconcilling the quote above with some of the other things that Schmidt has said. As far as I was aware, he believes that astrology as we know it now wasn't introduced to the Greeks. They created it. He discounts much of what came before as not true astrology and has no bearing on astrology in its current form. I presume he is talking of such things as hemerology.

Tom, there was an article by Schmidt in 'The Mountain Astrologer' a couple of years back on the work that he had done in this area regarding the Greeks constructing astrology. I had quite a few questions after reading that article, this one being one of them. It might even mention horary. Unfortunately, I didn't get around to chasing any of it up. Perhaps you have a copy and can dig it out. I can't remember the exact issue sorry but it was no more than three years and probably more like two. Unfortunately, all of mine are packed up in storage.