The slim volume reviewed here is a two-in-one monograph aimed at providing some material to the reconstruction of Dorotheus of Sidon's work. However, before the achievements of H.'s study can be fully appreciated, the most critical aspects of the previous scholarship on Dorotheus must be revisited briefly (cf. the introduction on pp. 11–14).
Probably in the first century ce Dorotheus of Sidon composed a didactic poem on astrology, which would become immensely influential to later science. Despite this impact, its five books have not survived in their original form: although some verbatim citations of the verses are found in Greek works, especially in Hephaestio of Thebes’ compendium, our knowledge originates mainly from Roman-age Greek and Latin paraphrases and medieval testimonies available in Arabic and other languages. V. Stegemann, recognising Dorotheus’ influence on later astrology, attempted to collect all the fragments and testimonies available to him (Die Fragmente des Dorotheos von Sidon [1939–1945]), but he was unaware of several key sources, including a complete Arabic translation of a version of Dorotheus’ poem. What is even more critical, he failed to recognise fully how thoroughly pseudepigraphic material, apparently in continuous production from Sasanian times to the Renaissance, penetrated his collection.
The Arabic version was edited by D. Pingree (Dorothei Sidonii carmen astrologicum [1976]), who attributed it to ʿUmar ibn al-Farrukhān al-Ṭabarī without any compelling evidence. Despite being arguably the primary witness of Dorotheus’ work, this text, demonstrably translated from a Middle Persian intermediary, appears to be both interpolated and incomplete. This latter feature was demonstrated by Pingree, who, collecting the Greek fragments corresponding with the Arabic, included as an appendix a few witnesses that report portions missing from the translation. Even so, Pingree remained extremely rigorous when selecting the texts for his appendix, which resulted in overlooking or rejecting quite a few known sources definitely or probably of Dorothean origins.
In recent years, some progress has been made to do justice to these genuine witnesses (cf. p. 12, to which at least C. Burnett and D. Pingree, The Liber Aristotilis [1997], pp. 204–13, should be added). H.'s contribution is one step, or rather two steps, forward in this direction: in the present volume, he investigates two leads that enable the reconstruction of parts of Dorotheus’ work.
The first part is devoted to Dorotheus’ chapter on the zodiacal signs. In the very first chapter of his compendium Hephaestio cites a handful of Dorotheus’ verses on zodiacal chorography (association of the signs with geographical regions) and the distribution of the so-called ‘terms’ (ὅρια, ‘Planetenbezirke’) in the signs. Although the parallels are entirely missing from the Arabic version, Hephaestio's exposition makes it highly likely that Dorotheus dedicated an extensive section to the signs, including their various classifications, which H. has already surveyed (Die Eigenschaften [1982]). To find the vestiges of these classifications H. meticulously examines Hephaestio's text, both the imperfectly preserved main version and the radically revised thirteenth-century ‘Epitome IV’, which H., following Pingree, attributes to John Abramius – although it was more probably composed by Isaac Argyrus (see B. Mondrain, in G. De Gregorio and M. Galante, La produzione scritta tecnica [2009], p. 630).
Since Hephaestio's chapter is an amalgamation of the teachings of ‘the Egyptians’, Hipparchus, Dorotheus, Ptolemy, Odapsus and unnamed others, H. needs solid methodological ground to decide whether a specific attribute used for classifications of the signs may or may not originate from Dorotheus (pp. 18–20). His choice is right: the adjectives typically used in poetry must have Dorothean origins, especially if this assumption can be further confirmed by the presence of the expression in other fragments of Dorotheus; on the other hand, the adjectives that cannot be used in a hexameter in any conceivable form must be excluded from consideration. H. distinguishes 21 different types of classification in Hephaestio's description (p. 19); after a thorough investigation, he concludes (pp. 61–2) that nine classifications were certainly and nine classifications were probably drawn from Dorotheus, while the rest are undoubtedly not Dorothean. Given the depth of the analysis, these conclusions are sound and convincing.
Conversely, H.'s attempts to reconstruct Dorotheus’ verses, which follow the analytical sections for each sign, appear to be of a more conjectural nature. Although it is certain (pp. 29 and 31–2) that the classifications, not extant in their original form, were immediately followed by the chorography, which probably preceded the list of terms directly, H.'s reconstructions vary in their plausibility, especially when he needs to employ a plethora of fillers to arrive at a sound hexameter (see, e.g., p. 35). It must be admitted, nevertheless, that he has done what is possible.
The second part consists of a thorough analysis of the sections of a text (‘Dor. W’) that claim to transmit Dorotheus’ teachings. Although it is a description of the 28 lunar mansions, which may hardly have Dorothean origins in this form, comparing it with other fragments of Dorotheus, H. convincingly proves that the text was repurposed from Dorotheus’ teachings on the decans, sign-halves and ‘Jahrpunkte’ (the vernal and hiemal points at 8 Aries and Capricorn, respectively). These extensive investigations enable H. not only to identify some remnants of Dorotheus’ original wording and reconstruct partial or full lines, both conveniently printed with boldface, but also to confirm Hephaestio's dependence on Dorotheus in a few chapters of his catarchic Book 3, where his indebtedness has not been proven (pp. 106–7).
The exposition, like H.'s previous commentaries on Manilius and a chapter of Liber Hermetis Trismegisti, is dense but very informed, a genuine tour de force of a professor having dealt with astrological literature for nearly 50 years. Consequently, there is very little that a critical reviewer may find to disagree with. Traces of Dorotheus’ work are found only in three of Hephaestio's epitomes (Epitomes I, II and IV), not four (p. 11). The zodiacal joys (table 1 on p. 16) are more probably based on the scheme that equates the diurnal and nocturnal signs with the masculine and feminine ones, respectively (cf. p. 26), because this would make the diurnal planets rejoice in their diurnal and the nocturnal planets rejoice in their nocturnal houses. It is not always clear why Dorotheus’ fragments preserved by Hephaestio are sometimes quoted from the Hephaestio edition and sometimes from the Dorotheus edition: see, for example, p. 70, where under Gemini ‘Heph. 3,9,7’ (which is Dor. p. 392, 11–12) but under Sagittarius ‘Dor. p. 389,18’ (which is Heph. 3.19.1) are given. For the entry ‘Iul. B’ on p. 110, read ‘CCAG IV (1903)’; also, delete this reference from p. 26 n. 38 or move it into the next footnote. Finally, an index locorum would have been a great help for readers, but at least, fortunately, the e-book version is searchable.
Even though much still needs to be done to reconstruct the contents and possibly even the words of Dorotheus’ poem, clarify the details of transmission, and give an account of the issue of the Pseudo-Dorotheana, H.'s magisterial work is an important milestone on this long road.
