International Journal of Divination

& Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

brill.com/ijdp

Genethlialogy, Katarchoscopy, and Astrological

Authorities in John Tzetzes’s Allegories of the “Iliad”

Joanna Komorowska*
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw
jk.komorowska@gmail.com

Abstract

In his Allegoriae Iliadis, John Tzetzes makes frequent use of contemporary astrological
teachings: he references planetary aspects, transits, and the respective positions of lu-
minaries, and several important passages of the Iliad are treated as openly astrological
in nature. In Tzetzes’s poem, both life and death are decided by changing positions
of stars, Alexander (Paris) is favored by Aphrodite (the planet Venus), and Hector is
protected by Zeus (the planet Jupiter). The idea of royal birth (or imperial horoscope)
plays an important part in Tzetzes’s exploration of the myth of Heracles, and the tropi-
cal nature of the sign of Libra, due to the sun’s entry into it at the autumnal equinox, is
reflected in the (non-)efficiency of the Greek ramparts. This article considers these ref-
erences to astrological lore against the wider background of the surviving Fachliteratur
and thus seeks to provide insight into Tzetzes’s attitude toward astrology, and, simulta-
neously, into his own knowledge of the lore.

Keywords

John Tzetzes – allegoresis – astrology – genethlialogy

*  The present article owes much to the participants in the conference “Preserving, Comment­
ing, Adapting: Commentaries on Ancient Texts in Twelfth Century Byzantium,” held in
Katowice in October 2017. I also thank the two anonymous referees for the Journal, whose
remarks considerably improved the Byzantinist aspect of the piece while also influencing its
final shape.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/25899201-12340006

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
124 Komorowska

John Tzetzes’s Allegoriae Iliadis,1 a twelfth-century poetic abbreviation of the

Homeric poem interpreted in conformity with the tenets of Christian ortho-
doxy, is something of a staple element in studies of allegory and allegoresis
during the Byzantine era.2 My interest, however, lies in a particular aspect of
this poem and its allegoretic content, i.e. with its allusions to astrological lore.
Even a cursory reading reveals that, by contrast with Tzetzes’s other allegoriz-
ing poem, the Allegories of the “Odyssey,”3 the Allegoriae Iliadis often privileges
astrological explanations of Homeric text. Indeed, the poet repeatedly refers
the reader to cosmological and astronomical details of the mechanics of ce-
lestial spheres and their divinatory dimensions. The general purpose of these
references is clear: throughout the poem Tzetzes is seeking to furnish a cogent
explanation for Homeric images.4

1 Subject of the Poem

The present contribution does not, however, centre on authorial intent but on
the function of the allusions to astrology as testimonies both to Tzetzes’s own

1  The text and the translation of the Allegoriae Iliadis employed throughout this article are
those found in: John Tzetzes, Allegories of the “Iliad”, trans. Adam J. Goldwyn and Dimitra
Kokkini, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 37 (Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press,
2015). In the following, this translation is referred to as “Goldwyn/Kokkini.”
 Finally, it is to be noted that while Greek names (Aphrodite, Zeus, etc.) are used to refer to
divinities, Latin or Latinized forms are used with respect to planets, stars and constellations.
 For a general discussion of Tzetzes’s career, see first and foremost Carl Wendel, “Ioannes
Tzetzes,” in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. August Pauly,
Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, and Konrat Ziegler, supp. 2, vol. 7 (Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler,
1948), col. 1959–2011; see also Paul Gautier, “La curieuse ascendance de Jean Tzetzès,” Revue
des Études Byzantines 28 (1970): 207–220.
2  See Felix Budelmann, “Classical Commentary in Byzantium: John Tzetzes on Ancient Greek
Literature,” in The Classical Commentary: History, Practices, Theory, ed. Roy K. Gibson and
Christina Shuttleworth Kraus (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 141–169. On the formal aspect of the
Allegoriae and contemporary poetic works, see Paul Magdalino, “Cultural Change? The
Context of Byzantine Poetry from Geometres to Prodromos,” in Poetry and Its Contexts in
Eleventh-Century Byzantium, ed. Floris Bernard and Kristoffel Demoen (New York: Routledge,
2016), 20–21.
3  This work, accessible in the edition of Herbert Hunger, “Johannes Tzetzes, Allegorien
zur Odyssee, Buch 13–24: Kommentierte Textausgabe,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 48, no. 1
(1955): 4–48, and Herbert Hunger, “Johannes Tzetzes, Allegorien zur Odyssee, Buch 1–12:
Kommentierte Textausgabe,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 49, no. 2 (1956): 249–310, manifests a
pronounced tendency to interpret divine figures as allegories of psychic powers (Athene as
prudence, Muse as wisdom), physical phenomena (Hephaestus as heat) or cosmic instances
(Zeus as fate).
4  See Hunger, “Iohannes Tzetzes,” 1955, 5.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
Genethlialogy, Katarchoscopy, and Astrological Authorities 125

knowledge of astrological teachings and to the level of awareness presupposed

to exist among his intended audience. That is, not only is Tzetzes capable of
making more or less detailed allusions to astrological tenets, he clearly expects
them to be understood (or appreciated). This expectation, one may note, is not
necessarily surprising: after all, the Allegoriae were originally intended for the
use and instruction of the young empress Eirene (Bertha von Sulzbach), wife
of Manuel I Comnene. The emperor’s interest in astrological teachings is well
attested, both in his own correspondence with Michael Glycas (available in the
Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum 5.3) and other historical sources.5
Further, Manuel was also the addressee of John Kamateros’s poetic Introduction
to Astrology,6 another confirmation of his interest in the lore. It is to be noted
that while Manuel’s interest in astrology may seem unusually pronounced due
to his written (and competent) defence of it, it is by no means unique: as has
been demonstrated by Pingree and Grünbart, astrologers were quite frequently
consulted at court (even if their advice could be ignored), while competing
interpretations of a given thema could be deployed for political ends.7 Finally,
the persona of John Tzetzes himself should be taken into account here: he
was, after all, a man immensely proud of his reading and a highly competi-
tive scholar intent on portraying himself as a ‘breathing library’.8 Interestingly,

5  For historical testimony to Manuel’s actual use of astrology, see Michael Grünbart, “Göttlicher
Wink und Stimme von oben: Ressourcen des Entscheidens am byzantinischen Kaiserhof,” in
Religion und Entscheiden: Historische und kulturwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, ed. Wolfram
Drews, Ulrich Pfister, and Martina Wagner-Egelhaaf (Würzburg: Ergon, 2018), 293–313; for
the letter exchange with Glycas, see Anna Maria Ieraci Bio, “Astrologia e medicina nella
polemica fra Manuele I Comneno e Michele Glica,” Sileno 25 (1999): 79–96. See also Paul
Magdalino, L’Orthodoxie des astrologues: La Science entre le dogme et la divination à Byzance
(VIIe–XIVe siècle) (Paris: Lethielleux, 2006), 109–132.
6  Available in the edition of Weigl: Johannes Kamateros, Εἰσαγωγὴ ἀστρονομίας, ed. Ludwig
Weigl (Frankenthal: H. Sturtz, 1907–1908).
7  For the attested practices of consultation and horoscopy see Grünbart, “Göttlicher Wink,”
and David Pingree, “The Horoscope of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus,” Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 27 (1973): 217–231. For competing horoscopes see above all Pingree “Political
Horoscopes from the Reign of Zeno,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30 (1976): 133–150. For the
more general Byzantine interest in astrology as divinatory and occult science see e.g. Maria
Mavroudi, “Occult Science and Society in Byzantium: Considerations for Future Research,”
in The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, ed. Paul Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi (Geneva: La
Pomme d’or, 2006), 39–96; and Maria Papathanassiou, “Stephanos of Alexandria: A Famous
Byzantine Scholar, Alchemist and Astrologer,” in Magdalino and Mavroudi, The Occult
Sciences in Byzantium, 163–203.
8  On Tzetzes’s self-fashioning, see above all Aglae Pizzone, “The Historiai of John Tzetzes:
A Byzantine ‘Book of Memory’?” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 41, no. 2 (2017): 182–
207. On his competitiveness (if not combativeness), see Pizzone, 182–207, and Panagiotis
Agapitos, “John Tzetzes and the Blemish Examiners: A Byzantine Teacher on Schedography,
Everyday Language and Writerly Disposition,” Medioevo Greco 17 (2017): 1–57.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
126 Komorowska

the astrological references in the text tend to intensify as the work progresses,
after a change in patron (from the empress to Konstantinos Kotertzes)9 at the
beginning of book 16. While some attention has been paid to the overall char-
acter of Tzetzes’s learned allusions and to the literal references to the Homeric
text (including such subjects as the character of references and number of
quotations),10 the focus of my inquiry lies in the allusions made to the often
complex practices of genethlialogy and katarchoscopy.
Several important Homeric passages fall outside this scope, including the
famous description of the shield of Achilles in Iliad 18. While the passage at-
tracted considerable exegetical attention in the text, but it will not be consid-
ered in the present work—due to their overtly cosmological nature, Tzetzes’s
approach to the scenes depicted on the shield deserves separate discussion at
another time. This article begins with allegoretic readings of stars and planets
and then turns to more advanced and more properly astrological readings, con-
sidering these latter in order of increasing doctrinal complexity. Also, I will not
investigate direct or indirect identifications of gods with planets (unless these
appear in a wider genethlialogical or katarchoscopic context). This effectively
excludes passages like Allegoriae 1.353–361, where Apollo is identified with the
Sun (and the Muses with the planets),11 or the discussion of the twelve labors
of Hercules (here identified with the Sun) in Allegoriae 8.158–165.12 Nor will

9  On Konstantinos Kotertzes, his identity, and his standing among Tzetzes’s patrons and
acquaintances, see Michael Grünbart, “Prosopographische Beiträge zum Briefcorpus des
Ioannes Tzetzes,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 46 (1996): 175–226; Michael
Grünbart, “Byzantinisches Gelehrtenelend—oder wie meistert man seinen Alltag?”
in Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie: Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und
Kultur, ed. Lars M. Hoffmann and Anuscha Monchizadeh (Mainz: Harrassowitz, 2005),
413–426; Michael Grünbart, “Paideia Connects: The Interaction between Teachers and
Pupils in Twelfth-Century Byzantium,” in Networks of Learning: Perspectives on Scholars
in Byzantine East and Latin West, c.1000–1200, ed. Sita Steckel, Niels Gaul, and Michael
Grünbart (Münster: LIT Verlag, 2016), 17–32; and Eric Cullhed, “The Blind Bard and ‘I’:
Homeric Biography and Authorial Personas in the Twelfth Century,” Byzantine and
Modern Greek Studies 38 (2014): 49–67.
10  On the subject, see Adam J. Goldwyn and Dimitra Kokkini, introduction to Allegories of
the “Iliad”, by John Tzetzes, vii–ix. For the list of astrological authors known to Tzetzes see
his In Homerum 54 H, 778B (Dorotheus Sidonius frag. App. III F 2 Pingree).
11  This is essentially a variation on the lyra cosmica, as discussed by Wolfgang Hübner, “Die
Lyra cosmica des Eratosthenes: Das neunte Sternbild der Musen mit neun Sternen und
neun Saiten,” Museum Helveticum 55, no. 2 (1998): 84–111.
12  The distinctive confusion of daily and yearly rotation circles in the relevant text should be
mentioned: while other labors appear to coincide neatly with the Sun’s passage through
the zodiacal circle, the last (Cerberus) is connected with the morning dew (moisture of
the watery underworld, Allegories 8.174), while the katabasis appears as dysis (8.173, τὰς
ἅσπερ δύσεις κάθοδον πρὸς ῞Αιδην εἶναι λέγει: “these settings are descents into Hades”).

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
Genethlialogy, Katarchoscopy, and Astrological Authorities 127

I consider Tzetzes’s remarks on the identification of Ganymede with Aquarius

(Allegoriae 20.377–385), although one may note that, according to Tzetzes, the
responsibility for Ganymede’s presence in the firmament (his katasterismos)
lies not with the gods but rather with the astrologers (20.381), which appears
to move the ability to influence the actual shape of the sphaera caelestis to the
mortal practitioners of the art of reading it.13
There remains one instance of identification that does need some explana-
tion, even if only because of a certain confusion in the common English ren-
dering. In Book 22, Tzetzes justifies his identification of Athena and the Moon14
by referencing the goddess’s epithet “Tritogeneia” (22.83–84):

Here learn that he calls the moon Tritogeneia,

because it appears third after the convergence of the planets.

Unfortunately, the above quoted translation by Goldwyn and Kokkini obscures

the very point that Tzetzes is making for they ignore the technical dimensions
of verse 22.84: ὅτι τριταία φαίνεται μετὰ συνόδου χρόνον. The lunar phase genna
is probably being referred to here, a phenomenon occurring on the third day
after the Moon’s conjunction with the Sun (the synodos). This lunar phase,
mentioned in number of medieval selenodromia, marks the first appearance
of the Moon after the period of its invisibility and was considered highly fa-
vorable for any number of endeavors, playing an important role in katarchic
prognostication.15 Significantly, the generally favorable character of the phase,
as described in surviving selenodromia, is consistent with its association with
the goddess Athena in her guise of adviser and protector.

13  In a way, by allowing this, the Byzantine author follows in the footsteps of those who
credit human beings with the recognition of zodiacal circle and the subsequent shift of
efficient causation to the stars (e.g., Geminus of Rhodes in his Elementa astronomiae,
c. 17). In this case, however, the shift is between the divine power to catasterize and the
human power to immortalize someone in a constellation.
14  The association is also mentioned in the Tzetzes’s allegorical reading of the Odyssey
(in Od. A 86 et al.). It was also known to Porphyry (In Tim. Fr. XXII Sodano, as quoted
by Proclus In Tim. 165.16: ὁ μὲν γὰρ Πορφύριος ἐν σελήνῃ τὴν Ἀθηνᾶν ὑποθέμενος); see also
Wolfgang Hübner, Athena am Sternhimmel bei Proklos: Astrologie im Dienste neupla-
tonischer Philosophie, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
2017 no. 1 (München: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2017), 15–17.
15  For genna, see Paulus Alex. Eisagoge cap. 16, p. 33 Boer; cf. also Catalogus Codicum
Astrologorum Graecorum 7:116.12–117.13. Similarly, the favorable meaning of the third day
after the synodos is noted by Hephaestio (Apotelesmatica 3.24.2).

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
128 Komorowska

2 Genethlialogy

The demigod Heracles is of considerable importance for the present inquiry.

The hero becomes a subject of more extensive considerations in Allegories
XVIII, where he is praised as a descendant of the astrologer-king Zeus and as a
competent practitioner of the art himself; however, despite his superior cogni-
tive abilities, the hero remains mortal. Thus, even his vast knowledge of astrol-
ogy allows him to elude his predestined death (18.400–409):

οὐδ’ Ἡρακλῆς ὁ φίλος γὰρ Διῖ τῷ ἀστρολόγῳ

[…]
τὴν κῆρα καὶ τὸν θάνατον ἐξέδραμε τὴν τέχνην;

For not even Heracles, friend of Zeus the astrologer

[…]
not even he escaped death and destruction through his skill.

The Greek text should be understood at this point both in the sense suggested
by 18.403 (καὶ οὐράνῳ δὲ φίλος ἦν, ὡς ἀστρόλογος οἷος; and was a friend of the sky,
being an astrologer of such quality) but also in the more precise sense of being
“beloved of Zeus [i.e. the planet Jupiter], star of astrologers,” an interpretation
which agrees, to name just a single example, with Claudius Ptolemy’s ten-
dency to connect Jupiter [the planet] to rulership and divinatory knowledge.16
Consequently, affinity with this particular celestial body would be associated
with mental acuity, regal insight and ability to foresee future.
Let us now consider the more openly astrological readings which do actu-
ally exploit some genethlialogical concepts known in Tzetzes’s time. Thus, in
the Allegories 3, where Alexander (Paris) faces Menelaus in single combat, the
Spartan king taunts his opponent (3.25–26):

16  This might appear strange, given that astrological sources link astrological expertise with
Mercury (see for example Ptolemy Tetrabiblos 4.4.3, Vettius Valens Anthologiae 1.1.39);
nevertheless, see the association between Jupiter and divination, Anthologiae 1.1.17–20,
Tetrabiblos 4.3–4 pas. One needs to remember that Tzetzes’s Historiae (known also as
Chiliades; the most complete edition of the work is the updated version by Pietro Luigi M.
Leone, published in Galatina 2007), contains at least one explicit reference to Ptolemy’s
astrological manual, the Tetrabiblos (cf. Chil. II 36.164 et seq.), along with the significant
number of more general references to Ptolemy’s legacy (such as his opinion on Ocean,
Chil. VIII, 212, 595–596 and VIII, 225. 790–792).

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
Genethlialogy, Katarchoscopy, and Astrological Authorities 129

Music will not help you against death,

nor beauty, nor your hair, the gifts of Aphrodite [δῶρα τῆς Ἀφροδίτης].

Tzetzes quickly furnishes an allegorical explanation: throughout the text,

he says, Aphrodite is to be understood either as desire personified or as a
star (i. e. the planet Venus).17 Then, he moves to a tantalizingly astrological
explanation:

For all those born under Venus

(when it is not out of its proper sect, it offers
more and proper assistance to those positions in which it is fitting)
beautiful and desirable women and men,
if they bear the mark of Venus on the first
rather [than] on the twenty-eighth degree of Cancer,
the men mingle with goddesses, that is, with queens
or women equal to gods, as Ptolemy writes,
and the women mingle with gods, or men equal to gods.

Let us begin with the astrological content. It seems clear that Tzetzes is allud-
ing to the concept of the chronokrator, the ruling planet of the birth hour.18
Methods of ascertaining the chronokrator are among the most complex aspects
of astrological knowledge and establishing the nature of this particular in-
stance constitutes one of the foundational parts of a true thema. The reference
is to Ptolemy, quite possibly to his Tetrabiblos, which by Byzantine times was
considered to be the most important exposition of astrological knowledge, as
shown by the homage paid to Ptolemy by the astrologer Hephaestio of Thebes
and by the large number of highly favorable mentions occurring in manuscript
sources.19 The English translation quoted above remains somewhat unclear,
but the poem does certainly discuss the presence of the planet Venus in the
sign of Cancer (governed by the Moon). Further, the text expressly mentions
two positions (it is unknown whether those are kata soma or kata schema): the

17  This assertion may be of some importance later, as the Trojans liken Helen not to
Aphrodite, but to Epithymia, Desire itself (Allegoriae 3.102).
18  The importance of the chronokratores can be seen in Vettius Valens Anthologiae 4.10 et
al., and Firmicus Maternus Mathesis 2.26. In Ptolemy, the role is fulfilled by the planet
with the most powerful connection to the ascendant point, as defined in the thema, cf.
Tetrabiblos 3.3.4 et seq.
19  For a discussion of Ptolemy’s presence in Hephaestio’s work, see Joanna Komorowska,
“Hephaestio of Thebes and the Proems of Apotelesmatica,” Mene 3 (2003), 159–179.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
130 Komorowska

first is the first degree of the sign, and the other is its twenty-eighth degree.
Both of these are said to imply liaisons with high-ranking officials or divinities,
an interpretation linked to the name of Ptolemy. The obvious difficulty here is
that Tetrabiblos 4.5 contains no reference to Venus’ position in Cancer at all,
focusing instead on planetary alignment in the thema as such.20 Additionally,
the division into haireseis (sects)—mentioned in the passage—usually refers
to planets rather than signs as such. Thus, in astrological sources, the plan-
ets Jupiter, Mars, and the Sun represent the diurnal, and the planet Venus and
the Moon the nocturnal sect, while Mercury stands in between the two as the
epikoinos.21 It is possible, however, that Tzetzes’s text reflects a certain concep-
tual overlap between distinctions according to sect (applicable to planets) and
according to genders (applicable to zodiacal signs): after all, nocturnal planets
would generally be thought to fare better in the female signs.
That the above-mentioned qualities and beauty itself are bestowed upon
mortals by gods (this is birth stars) and remain independent of human will is
asserted forcefully by Alexander (Paris) in his conversation with his brother
Hector, who, for his part, mentions something of some importance: he expressly
states that Alexander’s (Paris’s) birth planet, Venus (identifiable with goddess
Aphrodite), will not avail him in his combat against Menelaus (3.38–39):

If you engage Menelaus in combat, know well,

your birth sign Venus will benefit you not at all [οὐδέν σοι ἡ γενέθλιος
ὤνησεν Ἀφροδίτη].22

This may be suggestive of Tzetzes either alluding to the general assumptions

regarding the planetary gifts of Venus (goddess Aphrodite), as being ill-suited
for those embarking on military enterprises or, a more interesting possibility, to
the poet’s referencing the thema of Menelaus himself (in which case, it would

20  Of the two Latin authors working on the paranatellonta theory, i.e. Manilius and Firmicus,
the first mentions Procyon, αCMi as rising with the 27th degree of the sign (Astronomica
5.197–8; his description of the Iugula remains quite general, although the consurgunt in
Astronomica 5.175 suggests that the rising is contemporaneous with the sign, being its first
degree. As for Firmicus, he notes the first degree of Cancer (Mathesis 8.22.1); the final part
of Mathesis 8.22 is damaged (the text closes with the 25th degree). On the astronomical
tradition related to Cancer and its paranatellonta, see Manilius, “Astronomica,” Buch V,
ed., trans., and annot. Wolfgang Hübner, vol. 2 (of 2), Kommentar, Sammlung wissen-
schaftlicher Commentare (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010), 99–112.
21  Cf. Ptolemy Tetrabiblos 1.7 passim. Interestingly, in the preceding chapter (I.6), Ptolemy
discusses division according to the male and female qualities.
22  The translators seem to have made an unhappy word choice here, as Venus is clearly not
the birth sign but rather the birth planet, the chronocrator.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
Genethlialogy, Katarchoscopy, and Astrological Authorities 131

be Menelaus, not combat itself, that poses a threat to Alexander’s continued

survival). The course of this exchange is also important in the present context,
as Alexander (Paris) appears to defend a fatalist worldview that insists on the
necessary character of certain phenomena, with an apparently unconvinced
Hector putting forward a more morally feasible theory, which emphasizes per-
sonal choice and moral responsibility (3.38–55).
Explorations of the astrological tenets concerning the so-called imperial or
royal nativity (yet, significantly, not centering on the thema itself but arguing
in favor of a proper sequence of inquiry) emerge in Allegories 19.52–77. Here,
Tzetzes turns his attention to the astrological circumstances of the fateful birth
of Heracles.23 The result is a (meta)astrological interpretation of the famous
utterance which subjected the great hero to Eurystheus’s rule (19.62–69):

Zeus, that great king and astrologer [βασιλεὺς ὁ μέγας ἀστρολόγος],

Then, and only then, spoke falsely. For seeing the stars
all arranged favorably [καλῶς κειμένους] in an alignment suitable for
royalty,
and having looked only at the birth stars [μόνους τοὺς γενεθλίους],
and not foreseeing [μὴ προσκοπήσας] if indeed the baby would be born
then,
he said; “Wise gods and rulers, this I foresee.
To what is Alkmene giving birth today? What? A king.”
Thus he spoke, expecting Heracles to be born.

The god Zeus, here portrayed as an expert astrologer, errs in basing his oth-
erwise accurate horoscope on the straightforward assumption that the royal
infant will be born at the close of a full-term pregnancy. He forgets, however,
the necessary inquiry into the circumstances of the actual birth (frequently
associated with the twelfth topos, or, indeed, inferred from the mother’s own
thema). The result of this procedural mistake is obvious (19.74–77):

Alkmene had a difficult labor and after few days

gave birth to a ten-month baby, but Archippe then
gave birth under the royal stars to a seven-month baby,
Eurystheus, and so he ruled over Heracles.

23  Less detailed discussion of the same event is provided in Allegories 18.179–193. Strikingly,
in the earlier passage, the allegoretic interpretation of Hera (and the reasons given for
Heracles’s late birth as well as his homicidal madness) links the name to compressed air.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
132 Komorowska

Strikingly, Zeus’ mistake at this point reflects the dangers of the everyday
practice of astrology, with over-zealous practitioners ignoring (sometimes with
fatal results) the possible threats to the given interpretation, such as the length
of gestation period or the duration of the birth itself.24 It is also interesting to
note that the astrological explanation appears to be supplemented by a physi-
ological one, as throughout his reading of Heracles’s birth, Tzetzes persists in
associating Hera with air, a near constant association in the Allegoriae—the
size of Heracles, and his consumption of all the air in his mother’s womb,
impedes his birth at the favorable hour marked by Zeus. Thus, effectively,
Tzetzes’s interpretation relies on the one hand on astrology (as in Zeus’ meth-
odological mistake of neglecting the proper procedure while constructing a
nativity horoscope); on the other, however, it employs allegorical interpreta-
tion of a more physical or naturalist sort, where gods are identified with natu-
ral forces (as Hera is with air).
Another (and more elaborate) reference to the genethlialogical theory
emerges in Allegories 16, as Tzetzes moves to discussion of Sarpedon’s death or,
to be more precise, to considerations of the interpretation of the behavior of
Zeus. Thus, we read in 16.123–131:

Here Homer the wise, the sea of words,

describes the birth horoscope [γενέθλιον θεμάτιον] of Sarpedon
and says this: that he had the star of Zeus
[in the place [ἐν οἷς τόποις] where rulers are thought to be born;
hence says Homer that the star was his father].
Hera is also a star, which along with the other malevolent stars
[φαυλουργοί],
and most importantly Mars, Homer shows defeated Jupiter [νικᾶν τὸν
Δία δείκνυσιν]
in the nativity thema, and thus says that Sarpedon
died under the alignment where we have said he died.25

The text appears relatively clear: Tzetzes is referring to the conjunction of a fe-
male planet that is identifiable with Hera,26 with either of the malefic planets

24  An instructive discussion of gestation period, with an overview of relevant theories, may
be found in Censorinus, De die natali c. 6–8.
25  Two corrections were needed in this translation: in Allegories 16.125–126, trans. Goldwyn/
Kokkini, the text reads Zeus, that is,/ he was born under the star positions where rulers are
born; hence he says that his father was the star. The other correction concerns 16.128, which
in Goldwyn/Kokkini reads during Sarpedon’s birth.
26  This may point to the planet Venus, cf. Plinius Nat. hist. 2.37.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
Genethlialogy, Katarchoscopy, and Astrological Authorities 133

(Mars or Saturn), a conjunction either kata soma or kata schema, and further,
of a stellar arrangement that negatively affects the planet Jupiter (identifiable
with the god Zeus), the original governing planet of the nativity thema (here
allegorized into a father persona). In this arrangement, Jupiter is defeated by
the strength of the combined planets (most particularly the malefic ones). It is
quite clear that in Tzetzes’s understanding, the position of the female or malef-
ic planet affects the original position of Jupiter (i.e., Jupiter of the thema) and
effectively causes Sarpedon’s demise. This importance of the ruler of an indi-
vidual’s nativity thema is again emphasized when the poet notes (16.272–273):

He [Homer] gives the names of gods to Destiny [τὴν Εἱμαρμένην]

and the birth planets [τοὺς γενεθλίους] of each man.

Similarly, in Allegories 17, this time with reference to the divine gifts bestowed
on Peleus, Tzetzes asserts that it is Homer’s usual custom to refer to individual
birth planets (i.e. chronokratores) as gods; thus, men born under the rule of
favorable stars are bound to enjoy good fortune and die a good (honorable)
death, where the actual death will be preceded by the appearance of appropri-
ate omens (17.45–49).
Unsurprisingly, the most sophisticated (and the longest) astrological ex-
egesis in Tzetzes’s work concerns the final encounter between Achilles and
Hector: the detailed Homeric description and the sheer number of divinities
mentioned in the course of this tale alone would be enough to justify the di-
mensions of the explanatory notes. For present purposes, it would be well to
note the highly sophisticated nature of the astrological interpretation. The
relatively advanced level of explication is quite possibly best illustrated by the
long passage at 22.37–56:

I mean that gods are the stars and planets,

from which they say all that is destined happens to people;
for Homer is astrologizing in this passage,
and tells you the horoscope of the battle [θεμάτιον τῆς μάχης] that took
place then,
that Saturn and Mars, the most evil [οἱ κάκιστοι] of the planets,
were looking down upon each other in quartile aspect [ἐκ τετραγόνου
σχήματος].
And this shape creates great increases in intensity;
of good stars [ἀγαθοί] look down upon good people in it,
they increase good things; if evil [κακοί] stars, then <they increase> evil
results.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
134 Komorowska

Such was the horoscope of the battle then,

which had Mars and Saturn squared [τετραγονίζοντας] <above it>.
And if Homer does not wish to astrologize openly,
he introduces the good star, Zeus, being defeated [ἐν τοῖς κακοῖς
ἡττώμενον]
among the bad ones, having in malignant positions <of the Zodiac>
[φαύλοις τόποις]
also the Moon, Athena, as if siding with him [πρὸς αὐτὸν κειμένην].
Artemis and Athena are one star, the moon;
and for that reason he says that Athena opposed Zeus,
and devised Hector’s death with trickery.
For since the horoscope was harmful [ἐπιβλαβής],
it signified that Hector would die by deceitful means.

Tzetzes openly alludes to a prognostic (or, to be more precise, to a thema) of

a manifestly katarchic nature (in this case, to the thema of battle).27 The po-
sition of the Moon is described as unfortunate (φαύλοις τόποις), but the cru-
cial line (22.51) takes the form ὡς πρὸς αὐτὸν. The likely explanation for this
and other relatively general phrases is to be sought in the events described by
Homer. Athena deceitfully pretends to come to Hector’s aid—in astrological
terms this means that the position of the Moon appears to be salutary for the
planet Jupiter (Zeus), while in fact (owing to its position in a damaging loca-
tion) being harmful. This situation could occur, for example, when the Moon
was governed by either Saturn of Mars, or was either in the final phase or in
hypaugeia. The most likely choice for the present context, however, is that the
Moon is located in a favorable aspect with regard to Jupiter, but strongly af-
fected by malefic planets.28 Then, Jupiter would be “defeated, among the bad
ones” (i.e., the malefics), a description of the state of affairs when the benefic
planet is physically located between two malefic ones, their baleful influence
constraining the benefits of Jupiter’s own input, or in a somewhat weaker

27  This is clearly a relatively straightforward thema, which relies on the position of benefic
(Jupiter identified with Zeus as the star favorable to Hector as postulated by Homer, for
whom Hector is dear to Zeus) with respect to the malefics; on possible methods of explic-
itly ‘military’ astrological prognostication, as attributed to Julian of Laodicaea, see Joanna
Komorowska, “Julian of Laodicaea and the Military,” Eos 89 (2002): 61–70.
28  For an example of apparently favorable star positions, it is enough to consult the corona-
tion horoscope of the usurper Basiliskos, as criticized by a supporter of Zeno Isauricus
(Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum 1:107–108). On the horoscope see Pingree
“Political.”

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
Genethlialogy, Katarchoscopy, and Astrological Authorities 135

arrangement, Jupiter may be positioned between a planet and a section of the

Zodiac that is seen (i.e. positioned in specific aspect) by the other malefic plan-
et (a third possibility, the weakening kata schema, Jupiter falling between two
points guarded by malefic planets, would not be considered strong enough to
affect the benefic without additional damaging circumstances).
Following this, Tzetzes seeks to establish a like connection between the
Homeric Zeus (lord of Olympians) with the planetary protector of the Trojan
prince, the planet Jupiter. This latter, after all, is the astrological agent that,
within the nativity’s framework, seeks to preserve his life and would have suc-
ceeded were it not for the dominating position of the malefic planets Mars
(Ares) and Saturn (Kronos) in the thema of the duel (22.75–79). Thus, Tzetzes
alludes to the astrological practice of comparative study of two themata: in-
terpretation of the current astrological circumstances with direct reference
to the original nativity (in other words, the principal agents that are manifest
within the nativity thema are considered in their present positions). To consid-
er the astrological possibilities implicit in Tzetzes’s assertion that Saturn and
Mars dominate the sky arrangement at the time of Hector’s fateful encoun-
ter with Achilles: this could imply that the planet Jupiter is in its tapeinoma,
that it is found in a house governed by a malefic planet (Saturn or Mars), or
as explicitly suggested by the text, that it is surrounded by malefics (possibly
kata soma, where a planet would have a malefic both in the oriental and the
occidental position, located at a relatively short distance: such an alignment
would effectively cancel any favorable influence of the benefic planet, even
one as powerful as Jupiter). Here, Tzetzes adds further harmful agents, arguing
that in the latter thema, both the luminaries were found in harmful positions
(phauloi topoi), while the positioning of planets Mercury and Venus addition-
ally intensified the malevolent influence of the two malefics (22.80–82). The
reader would have had an opportunity to learn about the basic nature of the
planets in the cosmological discussion found in Allegories 18, where we read
(18.732–736):

Of the five wandering stars [i.e., planets] that we mentioned,

Jupiter and Venus are benevolent [τῶν ἀγαθῶν ὑπάρχουσιν],
while Kronos and Mars cause destruction and harm [φθοροποιοὶ καὶ
βλάπτοντες];
and when Mercury aligns [συνών] with the benevolent ones, he makes
them better,
but when he encounters the harmful ones [βλαπτικοῖς], he increases the
harm.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
136 Komorowska

These remarks regarding the planet Mercury are a variation on the epikoinos
theme: Mercury is a planet belonging both to the diurnal and the nocturnal
sect; by implication, this planet also cannot be definitively described as either
benefic or malefic, instead adjusting to prevalent astral conditions, reinforcing
the dominating tendency of the planets that are dominating at the time.
As for the thema of the duel itself and the already-signaled unfortunate po-
sition of the luminaries at the time of combat, the position of the Sun appears
particularly striking. In fact, Tzetzes appears to be taking particular care to ex-
plain that, in spite of its benefic nature, the Sun could not have saved Hector:
at the time of the battle it was being forced into submission by malefic planets
(thus, the scholar notes in 22.116, “Apollo left him”). Moreover, similar to the
planet Jupiter, the Sun here finds itself in a particularly harmful position,29 and
it proves unable to help Hector.

3 Katarchoscopy

While the previous passages alluded to genethlialogical lore, Allegoriae 7 con-

tains an interesting reference to the tenets of katarchic astrology: when refer-
encing the debate on towers that were built without divine blessing, Tzetzes
turns to the general assumptions regarding the tropical signs (Aries, Cancer,
Libra and Capricorn), noting that “all actions in the equinox are easily undone”
(7.125–126). Once again, he refers his reader to an authority: this time, however,
instead of Ptolemy (who famously eschewed katarchic astrology in his work),
he turns to Ammon, author of the Katarchai. Consequently, Tzetzes explains
the collapse of Greek ramparts by the astrological circumstance of their con-
struction. Because they were built in the month of October (when the Sun is
in Libra), the mere nearness of the Moon (expressly mentioned in 7.130–131)
to the equinoctial point would be enough to overturn the construction, even
without the additional damage caused by a malefic (Mars, Saturn, etc.).
The allegoretic interpretation remains particularly interesting as it appears
to conflate (if not confuse) two separate things: first, Tzetzes mentions the po-
sition of the Sun, located at the equinoctial point (the sign of Libra, [7.127] and

29  While the exact circumstances are not given in the text, one may easily think of the sign
of Capricorn, Jupiter’s tapeinoma, and, possibly more importantly, the domicile of Saturn
as well as the exaltation, hypsoma, of the other malefic planet, Mars; because of these
affinities, the sign constitutes one of the worst possible locations for both the Sun and
Jupiter. For discussion of hypsomata and tapeinomata, see Ptolemy Tetrabiblos 1.20 and
Hephaestio Apotelesmatica 1.8; for an extensive discussion of the Capricorn as such see
Hephaestio Apotelesmatica 1.1.178–196.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
Genethlialogy, Katarchoscopy, and Astrological Authorities 137

the month of October [7.129]), second, he references the damaging influence

of the Moon when positioned at the equinoctial point (7.130–131). The atten-
tion paid to the Moon sits well with general prognostication tendencies insofar
as these are attested in surviving manuals on katarchic astrology; yet, the con-
sideration Tzetzes gives to the position of the Sun is surprising.30 Certainly, due
to the particular demands of katarchoscopy, the rapid rotation of the Moon
remains far better suited for this particular kind of prognostication; if builders
were to be required to rely on the position of the Sun, prohibitions on build-
ing could last for weeks, not days.31 Thus, it appears that in his insistence that
the fortifications were built on the day of the autumnal equinox, Tzetzes con-
flates two different concepts. This notwithstanding, he unerringly places an
emphasis on the crucial point of the forecast: the involvement of the equinox.
In his reading, both the luminaries are located in the tropical sign of Libra.
Thus, Tzetzes’s text projects the idea that it is the tropical nature of the sign
as such effectively causes the tower’s collapse.32 Correspondingly, astrological
literature would indicate that subversion and change lie in the nature of the
tropical signs (and are linked to the tropical points themselves): the manual of
Hephaestio contains several passages that suggest that the presence of either
the ascendant point or the Moon in a cardinal sign is indicative of uncertainty
and threat of failure (Apotelesmatica 3.11.5),33 while Serapio notes that such
a thema foreshadows a quick change in the object of prognostication itself

30  The prominence of the Moon is manifest in the relevant chapters of Hephaestio’s
Apotelesmatica and one of his principal sources, Dorotheus of Sidon. To provide just a
few examples: in his discussion of sickness, Dorotheus advises that the position of the
Moon be investigated with respect to the nativity horoscope (Carmen astrologicum 5.31,
291–292, ed. Pingree); similarly, the position of the Moon is of fundamental importance
for considerations regarding the liberation of slaves (Carmen astrologicum 5.13, 270–271,
ed. Pingree). For general tendencies, see Hephaestio Apotelesmatica 3, 5, and others.
I investigated the importance of the Moon for katarchoscopy in Joanna Komorowska,
“Metodologia greckiej astrologii katarchicznej w IV i V wieku n.e.” (doctoral dissertation,
Jagellonian University in Krakow, 2000), 41–128.
31  In fact, the rapid changes in the Moon’s position with respect to the zodiacal circle are
behind the emergence of selenodromia of the type described by Ammon.
32  It is worth noting that the Goldwyn and Kokkini translation of Allegories 7.130–132 mis-
takenly suggests that the Moon should be located at the equinox; the phrase ἐν τροπικοῖς
refers both to equinoctial and solstitial signs (i.e. Aries, Cancer, Libra, and Capricorn)
rather than equinoctial points.
33  By contrast, the ascendant or the Moon in a disomon (Gemini, Virgo, Sagittarius, Pisces) is
indicative of trouble but also of final success, the best possible position being in a stable
(stereon) sign (Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, Aquarius). For the division itself cf. Auguste Bouché-
Leclercq, L’Astrologie grecque (Paris: Leroux, 1899), 151–153.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
138 Komorowska

(Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum 1:100.13–17).34 Ammon, whom

Tzetzes directly invokes, seems to have held quite definite views on the issue,
noting (p. 53.6–7 Ludwich):

πάντα γὰρ ἐν τροπικοῖσι παλίντροπα ἐκτελέσθουσι,

καὶ χρησμοὶ καὶ ὄνειροι ψεύδοντ’ ἐν τροπικοῖσι.

Clearly, in the discussed passage Tzetzes’s interpretation remains compatible,

in a manner of speaking, with the predominant tendencies of katarchic inqui-
ry. The attempt to erect a truly durable structure proves catastrophic when it is
undertaken under the auspices of a tropical sign (here Libra, whose influence
in this particular case is inherently damaging to the enterprise and can be fur-
ther aggravated by the fact that this sign falls on the location of the autumnal
equinox, thus possibly affecting the influence of the Sun). At the same time,
however, the shift toward the Sun renders Tzetzes’s interpretation unusual
and, in a way, unique. By conflating lunar and solar prognostication and at the
same time completely ignoring the position of the ascendant (the latter being
an important factor in the traditional katarchic horoscope), he might acciden-
tally render himself vulnerable to the same charge that he so elegantly levels at
the Homeric Greeks, namely: ignorance of astrological circumstances.35

4 Conclusions

As manifested by the above overview, John Tzetzes displays some familiarity

with the lore itself: his work exploits general tenets of astrology and various
concepts of genethlialogy and katarchoscopy. Thus, he makes use of the con-
cept of chronokratoria and the related notion of klimakteres, understood as the
moments of a chronokrator’s defeat (thus referring to the use of the compara-
tive method in interpreting an individual thema). He also exploits the notion
of a royal thema, while competently referring to the malefic nature of planets
and their relative aspects. Yet, the content notwithstanding, he strives to keep

34  This fact motivates the relatively favorable significance of this position in a medical
thema, when dealing with surgical intervention (see Hephaestio Apotelesmatica 3.32.8).
35  One notices that the English of the Goldwyn and Kokkini translation at 7. 118 (“Not hav-
ing mastered the proper position of the stars”) does a poor job of reflecting the technical
sense of οὐχὶ χρηστὸν θεμάτιον κρατήσαντες ἀστέρων (literally “not having secured a favor-
able thema,” which has additional merit of complying with the sense of the preceding:
“built it without sacrificing to the gods,” 7.115).

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
Genethlialogy, Katarchoscopy, and Astrological Authorities 139

his poem largely free of astrological jargon (a circumstance which makes the
translator’s job much harder).
On another note, Tzetzes draws attention to the association between the
five planets and the five precious metals, which forms a small part of a much
wider association system which in its full form underlies the existence of astral
magic. In Allegoriae 18.129, Tzetzes expressly states: “for to each of the stars a
certain substance is ascribed,” a tenet that survived well into the early mod-
ern era and formed a basis for many of the theories developed by Cornelius
Agrippa.36 Additionally, the consideration of Tzetzes’s work provides insight
into the understanding of comets, the nature of which was considered to re-
flect the influence of Mars and Mercury (Allegoriae 24.25–26, 169–170).37 That
Tzetzes appears to group the comets into a single category, linking them with
a malefic (Mars) and with an epikoinos (Mercury)—hence effectively grouping
them under the heading ‘malefics’—may well be the most surprising facet of
his description: it can be contrasted with Hephaestio’s testimony, while at the
same time apparently following the more general rule formulated by Ptolemy.38
Meanwhile, because of his assertions concerning Zeus, Heracles, Orpheus,39
and Homer, all of whom he calls practitioners of divinatory arts or, indeed, of
astrology, he appears to add weight to the lore as a legitimate and venerable
art, successfully practiced throughout the centuries of human history.
Finally, Tzetzes is not above finding support for his interpretations in refer-
ences to known and easily recognized experts in the field, such as Ammon (for
katarchoscopy) or Ptolemy (for genethlialogy). It must be said, however, that
astrology as such (or even astrological correctness) is not Tzetzes’s chief preoc-
cupation. Neither, it would seem, is being rigidly correct in the application of
astrological tenets. Instead, astrological flavoring is used to add fluency to a
narrative, while at the same time providing an illustration of the breadth of the
author’s own reading. Even the occasional authorities he names serve as props
and illustrations of his own learning, legitimizing his position as an interpreter
of an astrologically engaged text.40

36  One may also invoke at this point Allegories 24.204–210.

37  Comets were the object of lively debate and sometimes careful classification, as is con-
firmed by the account surviving in Hephestio’s Apotelesmatica 1.24.
38  Cf. Ptolemy Tetrabiblos 2.10 and Hephaestio Apotelesmatica 1.22.
39  According to Allegories 18. 710, the Thracian singer preceded all other mortal astrologers.
40  Interestingly, an art that enjoys a regard equal to that granted to astrology (but not as
much attention) is lecanomancy, or water divination: according to the Tzetzes, this par-
ticular art is the one that Achilles is invoking in Iliad 18, according to Allegories 18.395–6:

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
140 Komorowska

Bibliography

Agapitos, Panagiotis. “John Tzetzes and the Blemish Examiners: A Byzantine Teacher
on Schedography, Everyday Language and Writerly Disposition.” Medioevo Greco 17
(2017): 1–57.
Bouché-Leclercq, Auguste. L’Astrologie grecque. Paris: Leroux, 1899.
Budelmann, Felix. “Classical Commentary in Byzantium: John Tzetzes on Ancient
Greek Literature.” In The Classical Commentary: History, Practices, Theory, edited by
Roy K. Gibson and Christina Shuttleworth Kraus, 141–169. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum. Vol. 1, Codices Florentinos, edited by
Alexander Olivieri. Brussels: In Aedibus Henrici Lamertin, 1898.
Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum. Vol. 5.3, Codicum Romanorum, edited by
Joseph Heeg. Brussels: In Aedibus Henrici Lamertin, 1910.
Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum. Vol. 7, Codices Germanicos, edited by
Franciscus Boll. Brussels: In Aedibus Henrici Lamertin, 1908.
Cullhed, Eric. “The Blind Bard and ‘I’: Homeric Biography and Authorial Personas in
the Twelfth Century.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 38 (2014): 49–67.
Dorotheus Sidonius. Dorothei Sidonii “Carmen astrologicum”: Interpretationem Ara­
bicam in linguam Anglicam versam una cum Dorothei fragmentis et Graecis et Latinis.
Edited by David Pingree. Leipzig: BSB B. G. Teubner, 1976.
Gautier, Paul. “La Curieuse Ascendance de Jean Tzetzès.” Revue des études byzantines
28 (1970): 207–220.
Grünbart, Michael. “Byzantinisches Gelehrtenelend—oder wie meistert man sein-
en Alltag?” In Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie: Beiträge zur byzantinischen
Geschichte und Kultur, edited by Lars M. Hoffmann and Anuscha Monchizadeh,
413–426. Mainz: Harrassowitz, 2005.
Grünbart, Michael. “Göttlicher Wink und Stimme von oben. Ressourcen des Entschei­
dens am byzantinischen Kaiserhof.” In Religion und Entscheiden: Historische und
kulturwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, edited by Wolfram Drews, Ulrich Pfister, and
Martina Wagner-Egelhaaf, 293–313. Würzburg: Ergon, 2018.
Grünbart, Michael. “Paideia Connects: The Interaction between Teachers and Pupils
in Twelfth-Century Byzantium.” In Networks of Learning: Perspectives on Scholars
in Byzantine East and Latin West, c.1000–1200, edited by Sita Steckel, Nils Gaul, and
Michael Grünbart, 17–32. Münster: LIT Verlag, 2016.
Grünbart, Michael. “Prosopographische Beiträge zum Briefcorpus des Ioannes Tzetzes.”
Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 46 (1996): 175–226.

“he, remembering the water divination that had predicted this,/that he would also die
soon after Hector’s slaying”).

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
Genethlialogy, Katarchoscopy, and Astrological Authorities 141

Hunger, Herbert. “Johannes Tzetzes, Allegorien zur Odyssee, Buch 1–12: Kommentierte
Textausgabe.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 49, no. 2 (1956): 249–310.
Hunger, Herbert. “Johannes Tzetzes, Allegorien zur Odyssee, Buch 13–24: Kommentierte
Textausgabe.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 48, no. 1 (1955): 4–48.
Hübner, Wolfgang. “Die Lyra cosmica des Eratosthenes: Das neunte Sternbild der
Musen mit neun Sternen und neun Saiten.” Museum Helveticum 55, no. 2 (1998):
84–111.
Hübner, Wolfgang. Athena am Sternhimmel bei Proklos: Astrologie im Dienste neupla-
tonischer Philosophie. Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissen­
schaften 2017 no. 1. München: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2017.
Ieraci Bio, Anna Maria. “Astrologia e medicina nella polemica fra Manuele I Comneno
e Michele Glica.” Sileno 25 (1999): 79–96.
Kamateros, Johannes. Εἰσαγωγὴ ἀστρονομίας: Ein Kompendium griechischer Astronomie
und Astrologie, Meteorologie und Ethnographie in politischen Versen. Edited by
Ludwig Weigl. Frankenthal: H. Stürtz, 1907–1908.
Komorowska, Joanna. “Hephaestio of Thebes and the Proems of Apotelesmatica.” Mene
3 (2003): 159–179.
Komorowska, Joanna. “Julian of Laodicaea and the Military.” Eos 89 (2002): 61–70.
Komorowska, Joanna. “Metodologia greckiej astrologii katarchicznej w IV i V wieku
n.e.” Doctoral dissertation, Jagellonian University in Krakow, 2000.
Magdalino, Paul. L’Orthodoxie des astrologues: La Science entre le dogme et la divination
à Byzance (VIIe–XIV e siècle). Paris: Lethielleux, 2006.
Magdalino, Paul. “Cultural Change? The Context of Byzantine Poetry from Geometres
to Prodromos.” In Poetry and Its Contexts in Eleventh-Century Byzantium, edited by
Floris Bernard and Kristoffel Demoen, 19–36. New York: Routledge, 2016.
Manilius, Marcus. Manilius, “Astronomica,” Buch V. Edited, translated, and annotated
by Wolfgang Hübner. Vol. 1, Einführung, Text und Übersetzung. Vol. 2, Kommentar.
Sammlung wissenschaftlicher Commentare. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010.
Mavroudi, Maria. “Occult Science and Society in Byzantium: Considerations for Future
Research.” In The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, edited by Paul Magdalino and Maria
Mavroudi, 39–96. Geneva: La Pomme d’or, 2006.
Papathanassiou, Maria. “Stephanos of Alexandria: A Famous Byzantine Scholar,
Alchemist and Astrologer.” In The Occult Sciences in Byzantium, edited by Paul
Magdalino and Maria Mavroudi, 163–203. Geneva: La Pomme d’or, 2006.
Pingree, David. “The Horoscope of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus.” Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 27 (1973): 217–231.
Pingree, David. “Political Horoscopes from the Reign of Zeno.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
30 (1976): 133–150.
Pizzone, Aglae. “The Historiai of John Tzetzes: A Byzantine ‘Book of Memory’?”
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 41, no. 2 (2017): 182–207.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg
142 Komorowska

Tzetzes, John. Allegories of the “Iliad”. Translated by Adam J. Goldwyn and Dimitra
Kokkini. Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 37. Cambridge, MA: Havard University
Press, 2015.
Tzetzes, John. Ioannis Tzetzae “Historiae.” Edited by Pietro Luigi M. Leone. Galatina:
Congedo, 2007.
Wendel, Carl. “Ioannes Tzetzes.” In Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Alter­
tumswissenschaft, edited by August Pauly, Georg Wissowa, Wilhelm Kroll, and
Konrat Ziegler, supp. 2, vol. 7, col. 1959–2011. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1948.

International Journal of Divination & Prognostication 1 (2019) 123–142

Downloaded from Brill.com11/28/2020 10:19:25AM
via University of Gothenburg