Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Todd E. Klutz
5. Prior to its contribution to the eclectic edition prepared by C.C. McCown, The
Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1922). manuscript P had been printed
on its own twice, once by F.F. Fleck in 1837 (*WisscnschaftIichc Rcisc durch das
sfldliche Deutschland, Italien. Sicilien und Frankreich*, ll/^, AnecJota maximam
partem sacra [Leipzig: J.A. Barth, 1837], pp. 113-40). which was reprinted in PG
CXXII, cols. 1315-58: and again (in tronly) in F.C. Conyt)eare, 'The Testament of
Solomon', J(?^ 11 (1898). pp. 15-45.
study of the Testament on which the rest of this study is designed to shed
light,^ These are: (1) therelationshipbetween the manuscript just summar-
ized (i.e. P) and another roughly like it—namely, manuscript H—whose
value for establishing the text has been judged superior to that of P in sev-
eral of the most influential works of scholarship;^ (2) the linguistic and liter-
ary evidence in manuscript P (and another manuscript commonly grouped
with it—namely, N- -in a single recension) for the existence of a coherent
but hitherto unrecognized source that antedates both P and H; (3) the
stylistic features which, in combination with the most recently discovered
manuscript evidence (i.e. the Vienna Papyrus, discussed further below),
strongly support the thesis, still opposed in some quarters, that Solomon's
dialogue with the 36 'world-rulers of the darkness of this age' (T Sol. 18.2)
not only once circulated independently of the rest of the Testament but also
constitutes the eariiest stratum of source material in any of the extant
manuscripts;** and (4) the history of tradition that can be seen to emerge
from the proposals defended below in connection with the three difficulties
just noted.*
None of these questions, however, possesses any great significance
without first being contextualized in relation to the history and present state
of research in Testament ofSolomon studies. Consequently, in order to give
some sense of what these questions might mean and why they are worth
asking in the first place, another brief story needs to be told—a tale not
about antique rings and demons and incantations, but rather about the magic
of modernism, the intellectual misfortunes to which it has contributed in one
area of scholariy inquiry, and the self-affirming ecstasy induced by its own
brand of verbal enchantment.
6. The priniary focus of ihe prcseni study falls on the first two of these issues,
with the remaining two being addressed only briefly and in general temis.
7. See. e.g., McCown, The Testament of Solomon, pp. 37-38.
8. See especially R. Daniel, 'The Testament of Solomon XVIII 27-28. 33-40'. in
Osterreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Papyrus Enherzog Rainer (P. Rainer Cent.):
Festschrift zum 100 jahrigen Bestchen der Papyrussammhung der Osterreichischen
Nationalbihiiothek (Vienna: BrQdcr Hollinck. 1983), pp. 294-95; contested by D.C.
Duling, 'The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect\J5P2 (1988), pp. 93-95.
9. This idea of sclf-<:onscious reconstructive work in which the object of
reconstruction is allowed (In some cases by necessity) to have imprecise boundaries is
adapted from D. Caichpole, The Questfor Q (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993). pp. 5-6.
10. On the abiding influence of McCown's work, sec Duling. *The Testament of
Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect*, p. 91. All italics in the ensuing quotations from
McCown afxr mine.
11. McCown. The Testament of Solomon, p. I,
12. McCown, The Testament of Solomon, p. 1.
13. McCown. The Testament ofSolomon, p. 1.
14. McCown. The Testament of Solomon, p. 2.
15. McCov^n, The Testament of Solomon, p. 2 n. 3.
16. A.A. Barb, *The Survival ot*Magic Arts', in A. Momigliano(ed.), The Conflict
Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1963), p. 104. cited in R. MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire (New Haven:
Yale Universit>' Press, 1981), p. 83, who tacitly valorises Barb's rationalist phraseology
by describing it as merely 'a trifle dramatic' and conveying 'the right impression'.
17. For exemplary sensitivity to the theoretical problems in scholarly discourse
about magic, sec especially J.G. Gager (ed.). Curse Tablets and Binding Spells from
the Ancient World {Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1992), pp. 24-25; Garrett. The
Demise of the Devil, pp. 2-36; and M. Meyer and R. Smith (eds.). Ancient Christian
view, to justify the rather different path being pursued here, namely, to
focus less on theoretical aspects of scholarly discourse about *magic' and
•religion' than on the four issues outlined above and related matters. But
before we turn to concentrate on those concerns, and in order to create a
satisfactory context for my own foray into this field, a few more observa-
tions on the work of McCown and the lasting influence it has exerted on
scholarly understanding of the Testament's textual identity are necessary.
As hinted above, what is conveniently called 'the Testament of Solo-
mon' is not so much a solid text with a clear identity as it is a blurry and
elusive textual space thinly populated by an assortment of heterogeneous
manuscripts whose chief source of unity is their mutual interest in certain
secrets obtained by Solomon from the demonic realm. Although I will
expand on this generalization in some detail below by discussing several
of the Testament's individual manuscripts, at this juncture my sole strategy
to defend its suitability as a summary of the text-critical situation is to
appeal to a recent essay by D.C. Duling, who, after translating and com-
menting extensively on the Testament in Charlesworth's OTP, asserted
five years later: 'Despite the dominance of McCown's views [i.e. on mat-
ters of textual history and identity], there has not been total agreement on
the earliest form or evolution of T. So/, a problem which persists to the
present'.'** As Duling goes on to observe, moreover, most scholars inter-
ested in the Testament have tended to rely heavily on McCown, repeating
his views on everything from genre and origins to provenance and recen-
sions.'*' Indeed, this same observation is in many respects applicable to
Duling's own publications on the Testament, with his positions on matters
of tradition history and textual criticism (i.e. those of greatest concern in
the present essay) being especially close to those advanced by McCown
over 75 years ago.^^
Merely a casual reading of Duling*$ work therefore enables us to recover
Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994), pp. 1-6.
Learned and useful but inconsistent on the problem of definition is F. Graf. Magic in
the Ancient World{XXBns. F. Philip; Revealing Antiquity, 10; Cambridge. MA: Harvard
University Press. 1997), pp. 12-19.
18. Duling, *The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect', p. 90.
19. Duling, 'The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect*, p. 91. A notable
example is K. Preisendanz, "Salomo", in PWVIII, cols. 684-90, which, in addition to
relying heavily on McCown, shows no awareness of the evidence discussed below for
a literary seam at the end of the Testament's fifteenth chapter.
20. See Duling, *The Testament of Solomon: Retrospect and Prospect', pp. 91.
95-97.
our initial survey of the document's contents (i.e. P). One of the main
reasons P merits special attention is that it contains a block of material
(T. Sol. 14.3-16.1 according to the textual divisions in McCown and
Duling) which, though absent from every other witness except manuscript
N, was considered by McCown to be an original part of the Testament and
included by Duling in his English translation.-' The material in question, it
is worth adding, is colourful: near its beginning, for instance, the demon
known as *the Winged Dragon* discloses that the sort of evil in which he
takes special delight is to copulate, 'not with many women, but with only a
few that have beautiful bodies' and belong to a particular zodiacal sign,
the identity of which is discussed below. But more important for our pre-
sent purp>oses, this same problematic section includes near its end (15.13-
14) a number of features which suggest that, at an earlier stage of compo-
sition, either all or much of 1.00-15.14 circulated without the remaining
eleven chapters of the document. As manuscript N, moreover, includes not
only 14.3-16.1, but almost everything else found in manuscript P,-** these
two witnesses were grouped together by McCown as the leading represen-
tatives of a single recension, which McCown himself and subsequent in-
terpreters have labelled 'B'. 25 Although McCown judged both P and N
(especially the latter) very important for establishing the imagined *origi-
nal,- 26and despite his confidence that P and N's inclusion of 14.3-16.1
best represented that original, he still rated these two witnesses as gener-
ally inferior to H, I and L,27 which he grouped together into another recen-
sion—namely, "A",28
Particularly in light of the presence of 14.3-16.1 in both P and N,
McCown's classification of these two witnesses as belonging to the same
text type is accepted here (as it has been by others) as unassailable.
Similarly, his grouping of manuscripts H, I and L into the single recension
*A* shows no sign of critical vulnerability. Yet these achievements should
up to 26.8 and thus undermining the structural cues found at the end of ch.
15. But just as importantly, the end of ch. 15 is merely the first of two
conspicuous junctures in P and N where a coda without parallel in H and L
turns out to be a false ending. To be precise, as in 15.13-14 so also at the
end of ch. 18, and thus once again at the close of a discrete unit of text,36
material that is absent from H and L37 but present in N and P strongly sig-
nals a macrostructural ending,38 whose schematic implications are bla-
tantly undermined, however, by the lengthy stretch of text that directly
follows in chs. 19-26.
In comparative perspective, therefore, the type of text preserved by H
and L can be seen to reflect a very specific and identifiable stage of redac-
tion which the textual trajectory represented by N and P did not undergo.
More specifically, this phase of editorial modification consisted, at least in
part, of a process of removing codas which, though Ihey may have func-
tioned perfectly well as endings in the older sources used by the redac-
tor's), became conspicuously inappropriate as more and more Solomonic
materials got added to the original Testament (i.e. 1.00-15.14). As for the
identity of these older sources, moreover, the evidence just summarized
36. That is. the discourse on the 36 decans {T. Sol. 18.1-42).
37. To be sure, as the text of manuscript L stops abruptly at the end of T. Sol.
18.28, L's omission of the subsequent coda is not as significant as H's. Nevertheless,
as the break in L comes directly after the discourse of the twenty-fourth dccan, which
of course is a muhiplc of the zodiacal number 12, the ending of L hardly looks
arbitrary or accidental. But more importantly, since manuscript H corresponds closely
to P and N in general content apart from the omission of 14.3-16.1, its lack of the coda
at the end of ch. 18 is almost certainly the result of redactional polishing.
38. The key portion of the additional material in manuscript P, which agrees in
general content with manuscript N, is as follows: Kai elxov rroXXnv nouxiav eyco
OOXOMCOV EV TTOOri TTJ y f j KOI EV E l p n v n SiTiyOV TTOXXri, TipCOMEVOS' UTTO nClVTCOV
avGpcoircov Ka\ TCOV UTTO TCOV oupovcav, Km COKO5CHIOUV TOV vobv oXov Kuplou TOO
GEOO, Kai n ^aoiXsia pou f]v EuSuvouoa KQ'I b OTpaT(>>^ pou f)v MET* EMOO. KOI
XoiTTov avEnauooTO q noXis" itpouoaXrip xaipouoa KOI ayaXXicoMEvr] ('And I,
Solomon, had much quiet in all the land and was living in great peace, being honoured
by all of humankind and those under heaven. I built the whole temple of God: my reign
steered straight; and my army was with me. Finally, the city of Jerusalem was at
repose, rejoicing and being glad' (my translation].) While Duling, 'Testament of
Solomon', OTP I, pp. 981-82 n. s3. recognizes the potential of these lines to signify
what may have been, at an earlier stage in the Testament's development, an end to the
document, he fails to comment on how the difference between manuscripts P and i^ at
this point corresponds to the contrast between the same two manuscripts back in T. Sot.
15.14-15.
39. In manuscripts H and L, the jump readers have to make from 14.2 to 16.2 due
to the omission of 14.3-16.1 involves a grammatically awkward shift from the dis-
course of one demon to that of another. Therefore, as Darrell Hannah has helpfully
pointed out in response to an earlier version of this paper, the nature of the omission
appears to have been a removal of an entire page or two rather than a careful editorial
surgery.
attention, he specifies that they must not only be nicely formed but also
possess 'a name of Tou ^uXou of this star'. As McCown's critical appara-
tus helpfully explains, in manuscript P the genitive ending of the noun is
absent and the Greek letter lambda is not found after the upsilon but rather
above it. Still, at least on the surface TOU ^UXOU seems a reasonable
reconstruction, which, as its referent in this context would almost certainly
be the cross of Christ, would cohere with several other Christian interpola-
tions in the Testament's first 15 chapters."" This same reconstruction,
moreover, is certainly preferable to most of its rivals, several of which are
regarded even by McCown as unintelligible;^* and an itacized corruption
of the same noun is attested at this point in manuscript N (TOU ^EIXOU).
And finally, the same noun is used in precisely this fashion, to refer to the
cross, in 15.10.**
Despite the merits of this reading, however, it is vulnerable to a syn-
tactical objection that appears to have been overlooked by all of its known
proponents; to be precise, by construing the letters TOU as an article whose
function would be to particularize the conjectured genitive ^uAou, which
in turn would be connected w ith the anarthrous noun 6vo|ja, the solution
just summarized results in a grammatical construction that violates a fun-
damental principle of ancient Greek usage. The principle in question is
Apollonius's Canon, which says that two nouns linked together in this
kind of construction will either both have the article or both lack it; only
rarely, in certain classes of exceptions (none of which is represented here),
do we find one noun with the article and the other without it.47 This
consideration by itself constitutes a nearly fatal blow to the idea that TOO
^uXou is the original reading; consequently, as soon as we recognize fur-
ther that Tou ^uXou is not in fact a proper name48 and that its hypothesized
occurrence in construct with 6vo\xtx would result in a most unlikely com-
bination/*^ we can safely dismiss this reading once and for all as a corrup-
tion of some other.
There is only one alternative that has more advantages than liabilities.
Conjectured tentatively by McCown but never seriously defended by him
or any one else who has published on the matter,50 the reading in question
is the anarthrous genitive singular form of the name TO^OTTIS'—that is,
TO^OTOu^*—which would constitute a reference to the zodiacal sign of
Sagittarius, otherwise known as 'the Archer'. In context, then, the demonic
speaker (i.e. the aforementioned Winged Dragon) would be saying that all
the women he attacks are associated in some way with Sagittarius.52
48. At first glance the Acts of Peter 37, where the apostle Peter is cited twice as
referring to 'the name of the cross' (ovopa OTaupoO). may seem to undermine me on
this point. But two considerations seriously weaken the force ofthis evidence: (1) since
neither of the occurrences in Acts of Peter 37 include an articular noun (i.e. all the
nouns arc anarthrous), both instances of the key phrase actually uphold Apollonius's
Canon; and (2) differences in the respective semantic ranges of oraupo^ and ^uXov,
the former being much narrower in compass, make the latter far less suitable as a
name. But just as important as either of these factors, in the few passages of the
Testamentwhere^uXov is employed to denote the cross of Christ (T. Sol. 12.3 and
15.10).nohint of an appellative nuance is discernible, depriving us of any basis within
the Testament itself for imagining that its editors had this sense in mind.
49. Although one may wish to urge in response that TOO fy\o\i is precisely the dif-
ficult son of reading a scribe would be tempted to change (and thus has good claim to
be original), we might counter that some readings are so difficult that they can be satis-
factorily explained only by recourse to the postulate of transcriptional accident: cf.
B.M. Metzger, The Text of the Sew Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd
cdn. I968),p. 209.
50. See McCown, The Testament of Solomon, p. 45*; and Jackson, 'Notes on the
Testament of Solomon', p. 52.
51. The change from TO^OTOU to ToO ^OXou can be explained in at least two differ-
ent ways. Either a Christian copyist deliberately deviated from his yorlage in order to
develop a favourite theme—namely, that the demonic realm has a special interest in
spoiling the sexual purity of Christian women (i.e. those who 'possess a name of the
cross')—or an angular letter tau at the end of the stem in TO^OTCKJ was mistaken as a
lambda, which could easily have led the copyist to construe the word as a carelessly
written TOU ^uXou.
52. As explained by A. Bouché-Leclercq, L Astrologie grecque (Paris: Lxrroux,
1899), pp. 373-83, most astrologers of Late Antiquity, unlike their modem counter-
This proposal has multiple advantages over TOG ^UAOU. First of all, as
TOCOTOU is anarthrous, its syntactical link in this context with the anar-
throus noun ovopot has none of the shortcomings noted above in relation
to Apollonius's Canon. Second, TO^OTTI^, unlike ^uXov, fulfills the gram-
matical obligation of ovopa in this context to occur in construct with a
bona fide name." Furthermore, a reference to the zodiacal sign of Sagit-
tarius would cohere much better than a reference to the Cross would with
the immediate co-textual reference to 'this star' (14.3), for both 'Sagit-
tarius' and *star' have overtly astrological overtones in this context. Simil-
arly, in terms of wider literary and thematic appropriateness, whereas
1.00-15.14 includes only one clear reference to the Cross (15.10), it con-
tains many references to astrological phenomena, including particular signs
of the zodiac.^ But perhaps most important of all, a reference to Sagittarius
parts, identified the zodiacal sign of their clients not according to time of birth but
rather according to time of conception, which was assumed of course to have occurred
nine signs earlier. However, for reasons discussed below, the branch of astrological
theory assumed in this context is probably not of this genethlialogical variety, which
was devoted to casting specific horoscopes for individuals, but rather is chorographic
in nature, dealing on a higher level of abstraction with the fates of entire geographical
areas or ethnic groups: for further disciission of chorographic astrology, sec Barton,
Ancient Astrology pp. 179-81,212,
53. The collocational appropriateness of having TO^OTT)^ occur with a term from
the ovopa group is well illustrated in Vetlius Valens, Anthologiarum 9.55.12: b ptv
ydp' HXios THjpcoSns uirdtpxcov rrpoocpKEicoBn Kpicb AEOVTI TO^OTTI, oirtp auTOU
Tptycovov npoacovOM0(o6ri npEpivov ('For the sun, since it is like a firebrand, was
assigned to Arics-Leo-Sagitiarius, which is the name of his triangle by day').
54. Sec,e.g.,/:5b/. 2.2:4.6-10;5.4,8;6.7;7.6;8.2,4; 10.3; U.3; 13.3; 15.5-6.As
additional support for reading TOCOTOU here, it should be noted that while no form of
this word is found in the critical text assembled by McCown. it docs occur as a variant
in manuscript P at 18.3; and, since the contents of the Vienna Papyrus, which is the
Testament's earliest textual witness (fifth or sixth century CR), clearly indicate that the
earliest known form of the Testament's eighteenth chapter was organised zodiacally.
with the 36 decans being distributed among the 12 zodiacal signs, we can be virtually
certain that To^brns was present in the three rubrics that originally stood in T. Sol.
18.29-31, designating the zodiacal patron of the three decans who reveal themselves in
these verses. As noted by Barton, Ancient Astrology^ p. 97. the distribution of 36
decans between the 12 signs of the zodiac was a standard conception in Graeco-Roman
astrological theory. In fact, many ancient astrological texts are so schematic and
repetitive that any damaged or missing lines in them can be confidently recovered, at
least in part, on the basis of the familiar sequencing and structure of the zodiacal code;
for a particularly interesting example, see F. Schmidt. 'Ancient Jewish Astrology: An
Attempl to Interpret 4QCryplic (4Q186)\ in M.E. Stone and E.G. Chazon (eds.).
Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead
Sea Scrolls (Leiden: EJ.BriM 1998). pp. 189-203. On the zodiacalframeworkattested
in the Vienna Pap>Tiis. see Daniel. *Thc Testament of Solomon XVII! 27-28, 33-40',
pp. 299-304; and Duling. 'The Testament of Solomon: Reu-ospect and Prospect', pp.
91,93-94.
demonic spirits in chs. 1-15 arc portrayed as owning. And finally, like
Omias in 2.5, the demon in 14.5 is coerced by Solomon into assisting in
the construction of the temple.55 Although we shall take note below of
another arresting link between these two units, the cumulative impact of
those just surveyed is to suggest that 2.1-7 and 14.1-5 do form a macro-
structural scheme inside the frame provided by the abstract and coda.
As noted above, only three demons in chs. 1-15 are closely associated
with individual signs of the zodiac; and significantly, like the two just
identified (i.e. Aquarius and Sagittarius), the third is mentioned not by
Solomon himself but rather by one of the demons interviewed by him.56
The identity of the third sign emerges in 4.1 -6, in Solomon's conversation
with the satvra Onoskelis, whose distinctive combination of the face and
body of a beautiful woman and the legs of a mule constitutes a clear
zodiagraphic representation of the sign of Capricorn.^" Moreover, while
Onoskelis's speech is not as vividly erotic as the Winged Dragon's, she
does share his keen interest in sexual intercourse and even uses the same
lexis (e.g. ouyy'ivoijai) to denote her activities in this area as the Winged
Dragon uses for his (14.3).^^ But just as importantly, in addition to antici-
pating the representation of the Winged Dragon, Onoskelis also parallels
Omias, the zodiacally affiliated demon that precedes her in the scheme
(2.1-4); for like him she identifies herself with the constellation with
which her human victims are associated. Thus, alongside Omias and the
55. Although this particular link docs add strength to the larger parallelism between
the two units, in itsel fit carries only minimal weight since most of the demons inter-
viewed by Solomon in this section are coerced into working on the construction of the
temple.
56. While astrological concepts are linked with many of the other demons in the
Testament, they concern pianetar\' and astral phenomena outside the zodiacal system of
12 signs (e.g. 8.1-tl; 15.5).
57. Duling. ^Testament of Solomon', p. 965 n. 4c; on the symbolism of Capricorn,
see especially Bouch^-Leclercq. L Astrohgie grecque, pp. 144-45.
58. As several other lexical options (e.g. yivcooKco. OUMTTXCKCO) would have been
familiar and available to the re.v/tfwt'M/'s author/editor (see I). Bain, 'Six Greek Verbs
of Sexual Congress'. CiQ 4[ [1991]. pp. 51-77). the use of ouyy'ivoiiai in both of
these contexts should not be presumed litcrarily innocent or structurally inconsequen-
tial; on the contrary, since any two verbs for sexual congress could have been chosen
from the larger set of available options, the repetition of the one tenn in this context
helps to create a sense of schematic correspondence between the two passages and thus
reinforces the argument made here and below concerning the structure and former inde-
pendence of the Testament's first 15 chapters.
the zodiac) is not difficult to imagine in early Imperial and Late Antique culture; for,
according to Barton {Ancient Astrology, pp. 82. 125-30). zodiacal triplicities played a
prominent role in the astrological theorizing of figures such as Dorotheus of Sidon
(first century en) and Rhclorius the Egyptian (sixth century CE).
62. For discussion of the various ways the 12 signs were categorized by ancient
astrological theorists, see Barton. Ancient Astrology; p. 102.
63. Unlike chorographic astrology (discussed further below), which concerns itself
with the behaviour and characteristics of whole races and countries and cities,
genethlialogy focuses chiefly on matters of individual interest. For further discussion
of the differences between the two, sec Barton, Ancient Astrology, pp. 179-84.
64. Jackson, *Notes on the Testament of Solomon', p. 27. On Omias*s claim that he
strangles 'those who reside in Aquarius who because of their lust for wenches have
invoked the zodiacal Virgin' (2.2). Jackson comments. 'This is nonsensical in astro-
logical, not to mention logical terms' (p. 27).
65. For reasons discassed below, I opt here for Jackson's own rendering of the
Greek ('Notes on the Testament of Solomon', p. 27) rather than Duling's.
66. Jackson, 'Notes on the Testament of Solomon*, p. 27.
importantly, he also assumes that the wider astrological game being played
in this context is essentially of the genethlialogical variety. Against this,
however, both 2.2 and 4.6-7 contain clues suggesting that something other
than genethlialogy is involved here, that perhaps to"lieinAquarius"in this
context is better interpreted in terms of chorographic or so-called mundane
astrology, which is comparatively more group-orientated in its concerns.
The clearest clue pointing in this direction is probably Onoskelis's dis-
closure, in 4.6-7, that the men she most enjoys intercourse with are those
whose skin is 'honey-coloured'. As these honey-toned men are also
described as belonging en masse to the same zodiacal sign to which
Onoskelis herself belongs (i.e. Capricorn), the assumed framework of con-
cepts in this setting is therefore one in which belonging to a given sign of
the zodiac is based not on date of birth or conception but rather on physi-
cal attributes and thus, in most cases, on ethno-geographical identity; for
this latter set of factors would have stood a far better chance of being un-
derstood in relation to skin colour than would dates of birth or conception.
In chorographic discourse, each sign of the zodiac functions as the
patron deity of a particular set of geographical areas and their associated
racial groups. Unsurprisingly, therefore, chorography was widely used in
the Graeco-Roman world to explain the physical appearance and cultural
habits of different peoples and races.^^ As an understanding of choro-
graphic concepts furthcrmorc enables us in the present context to under-
stand both why the devotees of Onoskelis all have honey-coloured skin
and why they are obligated to honour her (and thus Capricorn) in particu-
lar, this species of astrological theory ought to be recognized henceforth as
one of the most relevant systems of contextual knowledge for anyone
trying to understand and explain the content of T SoL 4.6-7.
In view of the interpretative light shed by chorography on 4.6-7, we
may well w ish to explore whether this same framework of concepts helps
us to understand the other zodiacal references in 1.00-15.14. Awareness of
chorographic ideas does in fact help to clear up at least one grammatically
problematic aspect of the demon Omias*s speech cited above (2.2-4).
Whereas the Greek construction TOUS EV'YSpoxoco Keipevous" 5 r €7Ti-
67. Barton, Ancient Astrology^ pp. 182-85. An early and particularly interesting
variation on this theme is present in Hippocrates, Airs, Waters. Places 15.20-21, where,
as the antecedent co-text of the passage makes clear, the pale skin of the Scythians is
attributed not just to factors of climate, but also to that on which all climatic variation is
thought to depend, that is, therisingsand settings of stars, the solstices, equino.xes, etc.