Sahl and the Tājika Yogas: Indian transformations of Arabic astrology

Summary

This paper offers a positive identification of Sahl ibn Bishr's Kitāb al-˒ aḥkām ˓alā ˒n-niṣba al-falakiyya as the Arabic source text for what is perhaps the most characteristic feature of the medieval Perso-Indian style of astrology known as tājika: the sixteen yogas or types of planetary configurations. The dependence of two late sixteenth-century tājika works in Sanskrit – Nīlakaṇṭha's Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī and Gaṇeśa's Tājikabhūṣaṇa – on Sahl, presumably through one or more intermediary texts, is demonstrated by a comparison of the terminology and examples employed; and the Indian reception of Arabic astrology is discussed, including reinterpretations of technical terms occasioned partly by corrupt transmission.

Notes

¹David Pingree, From Astral Omens to Astrology: from Babylon to Bīkāner, Serie Orientale Roma LXXVIII (Roma, 1997), 90.

²The relevant material is found in its Saṃjñātantra, Ṣoḍaśayogādhyāya. Although the division of the text into adhyāyas is not entirely consistent across editions, we shall refer to the Ṣoḍaśayogādhyāya as adhyāya 2. In the absence of a critical edition of the Tājikanīlakaṇṭhī, we have used the edition of the Sanskrit text with Viśvanātha's commentary, Hindi translation and commentary by Paṇḍita Śrī Kedāradatta Jośī (Dillī [Delhi], 2008; first edition: Vārāṇasī, 1971).

³Pingree (note 1), pp. 84, 88–89.

⁴The TNK was composed in Kāśī (Vārāṇasī), the TBh considerably further south, in Pārthapura, Mahārāṣṭra, probably at the end of the 16^th century; see David Pingree, Jyotiḥśāstra: astral and mathematical literature, A history of Indian literature, vol. 6, fasc. 4 (Wiesbaden, 1981), pp. 98–99. The sixteen yogas are discussed at the beginning of its Dvādaśabhāvaphalādhyāya, to which we shall refer as adhyāya 4. The present Gaṇeśa Daivajña should not be confused with his namesake of Nandigrāma, born in 1507 as the son of Keśava Daivajña. In the absence of a critical edition of the Tājikabhūṣaṇa, we have used the edition of the Sanskrit text with Hindi paraphrase by Paṇḍita Sītārāma Śāstrī (Baṃbaī/Muṃbaī, 2005).

⁵The possibility of either of the two Sanskrit texts being dependent on the other is remote, given their proximity in time as well as the fact that each at times agrees more closely with the Arabic source text than the other; see instances below.

⁶Also known as the Mukhtaṣar al-mudkhal, published with an English translation as The Abbrevation of the Introduction to Astrology, ed. Charles Burnett et al. (Leiden, 1994). The relevant material is found in Chapter 3.

⁷The close correspondence between the sixteen tājika-yogas and the configurations enumerated by ‘Zahel bem biç Ismaelita’ was noted by Albrecht Weber in ‘Zur Geschichte der indischen Astrologie’, Indische Studien: Beiträge für die Kunde des indischen Althertums, 2 (1853), pp. 236–287, 266–267. Weber did not, however, appreciate the extent of the dependence of tājika authors on Sahl's text, and also referred to other Arabic-language authors in his explication of the yogas. Neither does Pingree, who refers to Weber's work, appear to have realized the importance of the latter's observation; see Pingree (note 4), p. 99.

⁸The forms are those given in Stegemann's edition of the Arabic text, with standard vocalizations; see Viktor Stegemann, Dorotheos von Sidon und das sogenannte Introductorium des Sahl ibn Bišr, Monographien des Archiv Orientální, Band XI (Prag/Praha, 1942), p. 35 et passim. Alternative forms of some terms, agreeing more closely with the Sanskritized versions, are listed in Pingree (note 1), pp. 88–89. See our concluding remarks below for a discussion of these differences.

⁹TNK 2.15–16. Slight variations in these names occur throughout the text, mostly metri causa; thus, maṇaū for maṇāū, etc. Similar minor variations appear in the TBh.

¹⁰In North Indian scripts such as devanāgarī, the conjunct characters kla and kta can be quite similar in appearance. Nakta (‘night’) being a proper Sanskrit noun, a scribal ‘correction’ from nakla to nakta would certainly be quite plausible; cf. the pseudo-Sanskrit induvāra (‘moon-time, Monday’) for ˒idbār and dur-apha for ḍu˓f, discussed below.

¹¹Pingree has jāmi˓a.

¹²Pingree has man˓a.

¹³This configuration is missing from the list in the Arabic manuscript consulted by Stegemann, who nevertheless includes it on the basis of the Latin translation, where it is called gairalcobol. Moreover, the configuration is discussed at the pertinent place later in the Arabic text, that is, between the discussions of qabūl and khalā˒ s-sayr; see Stegemann (note 8), pp. 35, 47.

¹⁴Pingree has dufā˓ for daf˓ , here and in item 13.

¹⁵The TBh 4.5 has duṣphalinīkuttha, duṣphālikuttha, possibly in an attempt at pseudo-etymologization. Duṣphalinī (fem.) means ‘bearing evil fruit’, a meaning which does not agree with the supposed effect of the yoga.

¹⁸The TBh has dutthakutthīra.

¹⁶In Abū Ma˓Šar (note 6), pp. 44–46, these appear as two separate configurations: daf˓ at-tadbīr and daf˓ aṭ-ṭabī˓a.

¹⁷The somewhat unexpected transformation of ˓ayn into r is also found, as seen below, in durapha (from ḍu˓f). As discussed below, we believe that, in both cases, this development may be due to etymologizing efforts.

¹⁹Weber (note 7), p. 273, notes the same discrepancy between the tājika sources and ‘Hazel’ (seemingly an error for Zahel/Sahl), wrongly concluding that the latter's final configuration (‘de vitiis lunae et eius malo esse’) was added to the original list to make up for the omitted fourteenth item. For Weber's mistaken etymology of tamvīra/tambīra, see our concluding remarks below.

²⁰Pingree uses the vocalization haylāj; but hīlāj is closer to the original Middle Persian word (hīlāk, ‘releasing’, a translation of ), and the medieval European transcriptions – like the Sanskrit – all reflect a pronunciation with ī rather than ay. The common Latinization is hyleg, with variants. See Paul Kunitzsch, Mittelalterliche astronomisch-astrologische Glossare mit arabischen Fachausdrücken (München, 1977), pp. 49–50.

²¹The Latin translation of Sahl exhibits the same lack of distinction between alictisal (that is, al-ittiṣāl) and mutatil (mutaṣil).

²²Translation based, with slight alterations, on that of Yasin Linder, published in Benjamin Dykes, Works of Sahl & Māshā'allāh (Golden Valley, Minnesota, 2008), p. 18. Linder's translation follows the Arabic text published by Stegemann (note 8) on the basis of MS V 799 of the Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig.

²³TNK 2.26–27. The TBh (4.12) gives the same illustration but does not include degrees, nor the zodiacal sign of the moon.

²⁴The TBh (4.14) gives the same example without the longitudes, stating merely that Jupiter would be between the moon and Venus (with regard to its position within its own zodiacal sign). Sahl's text contains no illustration of the principle of jam˓ , leaving us to conclude that the present example was added by some subsequent copyist or translator – Persian or Indian – emulated by both Nīlakaṇṭha and Gaṇeśa.

²⁷Translation based on Dykes (note 22), pp. 21–22, with slight alterations.

²⁸The TBh (4.16–17) gives the same illustration, adding only (and seemingly unnecessarily) that Mars would be joined to the moon.

²⁹The TBh (4.18), like Sahl's text, gives Mars 20 degrees.

³⁰The topic of the hypothetical interrogation is present neither in Sahl's text nor in the TBh and may have originated with Nīlakaṇṭha.

²⁵These example horoscopes, although present in the Arabic manuscript used by Stegemann, have been left out of his edition and translation of the text; but they are present, in translation from the Latin, in Dykes (note 22), pp. 20–28.

²⁶Pingree (note 1), p. 88, although claiming to give Nīlakaṇṭha's explanations of the yogas where they differ from Abū Ma’shar, does not remark on this reinterpretation.

³¹But see our comments on the Indian reception of these categories in the discussion of ‘strength and weakness’ below.

³²Again, this rather drastic deviation of Nīlakaṇṭha's is not noted by Pingree.

³³Pingree (note 1), p. 88, misunderstands the word asta (‘set’), which he interprets as ‘being in the descendent’, that is, in the seventh house. In the context of planetary debility, however, asta refers not to setting at the horizon, but to heliacal setting or combustion.

³⁴Pingree (note 1), p. 89, gives a slightly misleading version of Abū Ma˓shar's daf˓ at-tadbīr, which is only half of the configuration discussed by Sahl. Stegemann (note 8), pp. 49–50, 69–70, fails to recognize the distinction Sahl makes between a swift planet occupying its own dignities or another's dignities, despite quoting (in Latin) Sahl's two illustrations of the moon being in Aries joined to Mars, or in Gemini joined to Mercury. The configurations are, however, well understood by Dykes (note 22), pp. lxvi–lxvii.

³⁵The TBh (4.27) agrees with the TNK in matching its definition of duṣphālikuttha to that of daf˓ at-tadbīr.

³⁷A somewhat different version of the terms (ḥadd, ) is known to classical Indian astrology as the triṃśāṃśa, but Nīlakaṇṭha apparently does not connect the two. The TNK possibly still employs the word musallaha in the original sense of ‘triplicity’, more commonly referred to as trirāśi or trairāśika. The TBh (1.21), however, lists the five major dignities (pañcādhikāra) as domicile (sadana), exaltation (ucca), terms (hadda), trairāśika and muśallaha, thus distinguishing between the latter two categories (here seemingly perceived of as two variant decan systems). According to Weber (note 7), p. 264, Balabhadra, writing in the 17^th century, connects hadda with triṃśāṃśa, but identifies trairāśika with the decans and musallaha with the navāṃśa or one-ninth of a zodiacal sign (a concept of purely Indian origin). In support of the latter identification Balabhadra quotes a Tājikatilaka and a Tājikamuktāvali, citing the views of the supposedly ancient, but unidentified and undated, authorities Khindaka and Romaka. More research is needed to establish when and how these misidentifications came about. (Weber's suggested etymologies for the Sanskritized forms musallaha and hadda, relating them to the Arabic roots ṣ-l-ḥ and h-d-d, respectively, are both incorrect.)

³⁸The Arabic has ‘straight of path’ (mustaqīm as-sayr), which in Sanskrit has become mārgagati, ‘travelling the path’ (‘straight’ presumably being implied). The standard Sanskrit term for ‘direct’ would have been ṛju, separate or used in a compound.

³⁹But cf. the comments following the section on the ‘defects of the moon’ below.

³⁶The definition of kuttha is lacking in the edition of the TBh available to us.

⁴⁰Dykes (note 22), p. 44 suggests that Sahl could be referring to the planet's own nodes rather than those of the moon; but the appellation ‘head/tail’ has more often been reserved for the lunar nodes. Greek astrological authors tend to include the consideration of latitude in judging the effects of conjunctions, and it seems to us likely that Sahl is following this practice.

⁴¹Rāhu as a single name for the eclipse demon, comprising both head/mouth and tail, was replaced in medieval India with the use of Rāhu for the demon's head and Ketu for its tail. See Martin Gansten, ‘Navagrahas’, Brill's Encyclopedia of Hinduism, vol. 1 (Leiden, 2009).

⁴²Carole Mary Crofts, in her doctoral thesis ‘Kitāb al-Iḵtiyārāt ‘alā l-buyūtal-iṯnai ‘aŠar, by Sahl ibn BiŠr al-Isrā’īlī, with its Latin Translation De Electionibus’ (Glasgow University, 1985), argues that this condition is a misunderstanding on Sahl's part of a doctrine derived from Dorotheus of Sidon and concerning the placement of the moon in a malefic twelfth part () rather than in the twelfth sign from its domicile. See the related discussion in Dykes (note 22), pp. lxii–lxvi.

⁴³At this point Stegemann ends his text excerpt, although his summary of the contents of the Arabic manuscript shows the latter also to contain the topics related below. We have based our remaining comments on the Latin edition (FAH 850) available with the Warburg Institute, University of London.

⁴⁴Sahl actually ascribes the difference to the notion that Mars is hot while Saturn is cold, probably influenced by Ptolemy's ‘scientific’ justification for assigning these planets to the night and day, respectively; cf. Tetrabiblos I.7.

⁴⁵Namely in the standard Indian order of the days of the week: sun, moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn.

⁴⁶The TBh gives a virtually identical definition – although differing, as above, in wording and metre – but before, rather than following, the exposition of the yogas (4.1–2).

⁴⁷The exception is the moon, which is said by Sahl and the Greek authors to rejoice in Cancer (its domicile), while its Indian mūlatrikoṇa is Taurus (its exaltation). The diurnal planets rejoice in their odd-numbered domiciles, the nocturnal in their even-numbered; the neutral Mercury rejoices in Virgo, which is both its domicile and its exaltation.

⁴⁸Weber (note 7), pp. 274–275. This etymology was also adopted in Sir Monier Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Oxford, 1899), p. 438.

⁴⁹These parties were, however, probably not themselves native speakers of Arabic, given the conflation of the letters tā˒ and ṭā˒ .

⁵⁰It is worth noting that Weber (note 7), pp. 247, 249, reports a statement made by Balabhadra in the 17^th century to the effect that the original tājika work, authored by one Yavanācārya and translated into Sanskrit by Samarasiṃha and others, was written in the Persian language (pārasī bhāṣā). Whether Persian and Arabic were two distinct languages to Balabhadra is, of course, an open question.

⁵¹Pingree (note 1), p. 89. Pingree is somewhat inconsistent in his application of this explanation, as he describes the stand-alone term kuttha as an ‘error for kuvva’ and not as a Persianized pronunciation, as in the case of duphālikuttha.