Sphujidhvaja (269/270 CE)
Composed in 269/270 CE a Sanskrit verse adaptation, entitled Yavanaja ̄taka (YJ) or Greek
Horoscopy, of a prose translation from Greek by an anonymous Y ́ (“lord of the
Greeks”). S, who claimed (YJ 79.62) to bear the title “ra ̄ja ̄” or “king,” pre-
sumably referring to a similar elevation among Indian Greeks under the S ́akas, wrote this
work during the reign of the western Ks.atrapa monarch Rudrasena II. The YJ’s 79 chapters
primarily concern genethlialogy or horoscopic astrology (chapters 1–51), with some dis-
cussion of other astrological branches (interrogations, katarkhic astrology, and military
astrology) and mathematical astronomy (chapter 79). Sphujidhvaja’s presentation of this
material, presumably similar to that of the prose translation, clearly reveals its Greek origin,
including many transliterated Greek technical terms. However, it also bears witness to some
“naturalization” within Indian traditions. The significance of the various astrological con-
cepts is described in terms of Indian deities and culture, and some of the topics, techniques
and parameters are apparently Indian rather than Hellenistic. Most of the standard sub-
jects in the subsequent development of pre-Islamic Indian horoscopy are based on those of
the YJ.
Pingree (1978); Idem, Jyotih.s ́a ̄stra: astral and mathematical literature = History of Indian Literature 6.4 (1981).
Kim Plofker and Toke Lindegaard Knudsen
Sporos of Nikaia (200 – 300 CE)
Six fragments and three testimonia, hard to synthesize, have reached us under this name. (F1)
E paraphrases his solution to the duplication of the cube (In Arch. Circ. dim. 4.57– 58
Mugler). (F2) P approvingly reports his criticism to the quadratrix curve (Math. Coll.
1.252–256 Hultsch): its generation requires determining the ratio of the circumference of
a circle to its radius, although it is meant to find it. Attributed to Sporos are (F3–5) three
nominal scholia to A’ Phainomena (Scholia in Aratum Vetera 541.40–46, 881.21–27,
1093.1–8 Martin) giving physical explanations for natural phenomena (end of the visual
ray pointing to the sky, parhelia, comets), and (F6) a short excerpt in one Aratos MS explain-
ing why Aratos began with boreal constellations, introduced by the mention “Hipparkhou
Sporos.”
Additionally, (T1) Eutokios (In Arch. Circ. dim. 4.162.18–24) mentions that Poros ho Nikaieus
blamed A for his vague approximation of the circumference of a circle, con-
trary to his teacher P G’s more precise estimation, as reported in his Ke ̄ria
(Honeycombs). (T2) This work may be the same as the Aristotelika Ke ̄ria mentioned by Eutokios
in the same commentary (4.142.21), with no mention of author but as well-known to his
readers (Aulus Gellius, Pr.1.6, signals keria as an example of a curious book-title). ( T3)
L reports that “Sporos the commentator” (3.6) excused Aratos’ lack of precision,
since his work was aimed only at navigators. Modern commentators strongly diverge on the
positive conclusions to be drawn from such weak and disparate bases. ( T3) and (F3–6) show
that Sporos probably commented on Aratos; (F2) and (T1–2) might indicate that he wrote a
compilation entitled Ke ̄ria, containing critical discussions of solutions to classical problems
of geometry; (F4) and (T2) might indicate Sporos’ relative obedience to A.
Martin (1956) 205–209; DSB 12.579–580, M. Szabo; Knorr (1989) 87–93.
Alain Bernard
SPHUJIDHVAJA