I have divided the extant parapegmata into seven classes as follows: A) Astrometeorological Parapegmata are those which relate astronomical phenomena with weather. B) Astrological Parapegmata are those which were used to keep track of astrological cycles such as the days of the moon, the zodiacal sign of the sun, and the hebdomadal deities. Some of these include civil calendrical information and nundinal days as well. The presence of the nundinal days in the astrological parapegmata may at first seem anomalous, but these were an important part of the Roman calendar, and so may have been incorporated for this reason. I doubt they had any astrological significance. C) Astronomical Parapegmata are those which simply provided a means to keep track of the phases of the fixed stars, with, so far as we can tell, little or no accompanying meteorological or astrological information. D) Other Parapegmata are those which sure either too fragmentary to determine their use, or which do not fit my other classes. E) Reports of Parapegmata are ancient accounts or descriptions of parapegmata. F) Related Texts and Instruments are those which pertain to the dates of, or date-differences between, the phases of the fixed stars and/or seasonal weather patterns. They are much more general than the parapegmata, but it seems likely to me that they are related to them either in function or derivation. Lastly G) Dubia is where I list any calendars, inscriptions, etc. which seem not to be parapegmata, but have been claimed to be so by previous authors. I give my reasons in each case for not counting them as parapegmata.
I do not distinguish in this classification system between inscriptionai and literary parapegmata, apart from noting the difference in my description. The calendars are undated unless otherwise indicated.
It will be noticed that my classification differs greatly from Rehm's.1 In the first place, he distinguishes primarily between inscriptionai and literary parapegmata, whereas I have chosen to class them according to their use, rather than their morphology. Secondly, and more importantly, Rehm lists many of the parapegmata that I include as genuine, under the heading of 'Inauthentic (uneigentliche) Parapegmata' (his class HI). His reason for this seems to be that he was working under the assumption that the literary parapegmata, most of which are astrometeorological, were paradigmatic, and therefore only those inscriptionai parapegmata which were astrometeorological were counted as genuine. The Ceramicus parapegma squeezed in on Rehm's questionable assumption that it was used to count days in a zodiacal month, and was therefore related to the Geminus parapegma.2
I have chosen instead to treat all inscriptionai parapegmata as genuine, and I class the literary ones relative to these. My reasons for
2 I argue in chapter 4, below, that Geminus does not use a zodiacal month.
doing so are twofold: first, the very word parapegma implies a pegged inscription (the Greek uapann^yvuiii means 'to put a peg beside something'). Second, I think the differences between the astrometeorological and astrological parapegmata are less pronounced that Rehm did. Both are tools for tracking extra-calendrical cycles, and their different functions even get combined in the later ephemerides. Thus I see any instrument which uses moveable pegs to keep track of astronomical, meteorological, or astrological information as a real parapegma. 1 classify related texts and inscriptions according to their similar uses.
A: Astrometeorological Parapegmata
A.i] P. Hibeh 27s is a Greek parapegma from the Saite Nome of Egypt and dated in the Egyptian calendar. It probably dates from the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes (early third century B.C.). Smyly argued, based on equinoctial dates, and comparison with the Eudoxan phases in Geminus, that it was probably the work of one of Eudoxus' followers. This is, I suppose, possible, but, as Grenfell and Hunt note, the text is "much disfigured ... by frequent blunders"4 and so one wonders how flexible we need to be in our understanding of "follower" and what value the text has for Eudoxan scholarship generally. Neugebauer is very sceptical of a Eudoxan influence.5
The text itself consists of a brief letter from the compiler to a student, followed by the calendar itself. Part of this letter is word-forword the same as part of P. Par. 1 (see parapegma F.viL, below). The calendar is not attributive, but simply lists risings and settings, the lengths of days and nights, some weather and, uniquely, Nile-depth forecasts and Egyptian religious festivals.
A.ii) Aratus' Phenomena is a third-century Greek poem, very popular in antiquity, which describes the constellations and various weather signs,6 including atmospheric signs, such as the appearance
3 In Grenfell and Hunt, 1906, p. 138-157.
4 Grenfell and Hunt, 1906. p. 143.
6 The section on weather signs Is at Aratus, Phsen., 733-1154.
of the moon or sun, and animal signs (as in Theophrastus' he pi orjueicov).7 In the astronomical parts of the poem, Aratus includes some astrometeorological information, such as that the Etesian winds begin just after the rising of Sirius, that Capella heralds storms,8 or that the north wind is associated with Pisces.9
A.iii) Miletus IT,10 was found, like Miletus I (parapegma C.ii, below), at the theatre in Miletus in the winter of 1902/1903 by a crew working under the direction of T. Wiegand. Unlike Miletus I, it is attributive for both stellar phases and weather predictions. Like Miletus I, it is inscribed in Greek, is fragmentary, and has holes drilled for keeping track of days. It is the only known source which mentions the "Indian Callaneus," to whom several predictions are ascribed. In his RE article, Rehm links a fragment of introductory material (inv. no. 456 C) to the parapegma fragments (inv. no. 456 A, 456 D and 'N'),u although in his original publication the introductory fragment had been linked with Miletus I, (no. 456 B). He changed his mind for "epigraphicaT reasons.12 The introductory fragment has the name (Ep)icrates Pylo(rou) written across the top, who was an ephor in 89/88 B.C.
7 Theophrastus, De sig.
8 Aratus, Phsen148 f.
10 Published In Diels and Rehm, 1904; see also Rehm, 1904.
11 456 C Is In Diels and Rehm, 1904, p. 102, and 456 A and Dare on p. 107-110. W Is published In Rehm, 1904.
A.ivJ The Puteoli Parapegma13 is a marble fragment 14.5 cm high x 8.5 cm wide, bearing a numeral (XII) and a partly destroyed Latin inscription correlating the evening setting of Delphinus with a storm. Both the date and the weather prediction have peg holes. It reads:
Was this article helpful?