Problems with Vettius Valens... et al.

[waybread]

I don't know if this board is the best one for this thread, but since some of us are trying to "research" traditional astrologers and no other board fits, I thought I'd try it.

We've had a bit of a cage match on other threads between two 2nd century AD Hellenistic astrologers. In this corner: Ptolemy, author of the astro-books Almagest and Tetrabiblos, who attempted to place astrology on a systematic, scientific (for his day) footing. And in this corner: Vettius Valens, author of Anthologies, who includes dozens of brief descriptions of horoscopes.

The betting odds appear to favour Valens, on the grounds that he was a "real" astrologer because of his many brief chart descriptions. However, Ptolemy is mounting a serious challenge. Not only was he a highly influential, experienced academic, but anciently and today we have legitimate branches of astrology, which Mr. Pt discussed, that have no bearing on birth charts.

And now for the first round....

It is painful, but I am trying to read my way through Mark Riley's on-line http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/ translation of Vettius Valens, Anthologies. And I can't for the life of me determine why anyone should think Valens was Mr. Astrology of the Ancient World.

So he's got a lot of horoscopes? I do not think that most of them by p. 41 (book II) could have been his own clients! In anonymous example after example, Valens talks about people who became "governors" or other rich and famous positions. He couldn't possibly have known all of them personally; not back in antiquity when transportation around the far-flung Roman empire was limited. Although "celebrity astrology" dates back to the Babylonians; this sort of thing isn't the work of a professional astrologer checking through his own client files.

Furthermore, in Mark Riley's on-line companion essay ("A Survey of Vettius Valens," 1996) to his Valens translation, he notes that most of the horoscopes cannot be accurately dated (which in itself raises an eyebrow about Valens, given computerized ephemerises going back 1000s of years) but he gives dates for some of the horoscopes. Some of them are too early. Valens lived from 120-175 AD. He gives a bit of an autobiography in his Anthologies, and the earliest age at which he could have practiced astrology, according to his bio-sketch, would have been ca. 160 AD. Either his autobiography is mistaken and he got a much earlier start; or else he got the horoscopes off a predecessor.

We have natives' birth dates ranging from 74 to 127 AD, with most of them giving dates of death or crises ranging from 139-169 BC. So a bunch of these clients died or had the major events of their lives occuring prior to Valens taking up the practice of astrology. So far as I can tell.

This seems likely, also, because according to Riley, a professor of the classical Greek language, a lot of the Greek in the Anthologies is in a form that was archaic by the 2nd century AD. While plagiarism standards were pretty loose until modern times, this reinforces the idea that Valens borrowed from older sources (p. 16). And that's good if we want to excavate an older layer of astrology; so long as we don't overstep valid inferences. That's bad if we imagine that all those horoscopes were for clients whom "the real astrologer" Valens actually knew.

Moreover, the horoscopes that I have looked at so far are pretty light on details. We get planets in signs, planetary rulers of some of the triplicities, and "lots" (Arabian parts) material. Sometimes these famous people have house placements (regardless of house system) that Valens previously in his Anthologies identified as misfortunate or "inoperative." Go figure.

Hey, maybe I am too hasty. It happens. But it is question marks like this that make me reluctant to take much "recieved wisdom" at face value. If I had more riding on this, of course I would do a lot more homework before proposing this alternative viewpoint.

OK, sports fans-- round two?

[dr. farr]

I have no doubt that Valens was passing on material from the school of practice of which he was an exponent. Actually there are statements in Valens to this effect. See, back then hermetic (and other) arts were confined to special groups of people (usually requiring initiation), and several "schools" of practice usually existed at any given time. We find Manilius obviously doing much the same thing (in his "Astronomica") as Valens did-even translators Gould and Houseman say that Manilius was taking material from various earlier sources, and passing it on. Now this is VERY different than Ptolemy, who specifically tells us (in the lead in to his discussion of natal astrology) that he is NOT passing on the prevailing astrological doctrines, but rather, that he is introducing us to something entirely new-ie, his own creative model, wherein any material deriving from other sources is being reworked into the system Ptolemy presents us with. So, yeah, big differences between Valens-as a provider-perhaps even just a copyist- of a stream of ideas and practices representative of the particular "school" or tradition he was a part of-and innovator Ptolemy, presenting us with a brand new astrological model.

Note: in re-reading Ptolemy in preparation from some comments to be made in our "whole sign" discussion, I have noticed how much Ptolemy sounds like Vedic astrologers! They actually seem to have a lot in common (wonder if Ptolemy had contacts with the large colony of "Gymnosophists"-Greek term for Indian Buddhists-who were residing in Alexandria during Ptolemy's time?)

[waybread]

Thanks for responding, Dr. Farr!

For sure the Hellenistic astrologers borrowed from their predecessors-- much as we do today (except that their plagiarism standards were pretty lax.) My post was more of a gauntlet thrown down to people who argue that Valens had to have been the "real" astrologer because he includes so many horoscope tidbits. Well, actually, these are usually extremely brief--mostly "planets in signs"; and then I argue that actually a lot of the horoscope precis could not have come from his own client files.

Ptolemy built upon previous work! How else could he have come up with basic planet and sign information? Or information that also appears in his forerunners' and contemporaries' works? When he gets to terms (I:20) he mentions two systems-- Chaldean and Egyptian. He didn't invent these, but merely passes them on; coming down in favour of the Babylonian method.

To cite Mark Riley, "Science and Tradition in the Tetrabiblos", on-line via the website given in my OP:

"It is difficult if not impossible in the present state of our knowledge wto determine whether Ptolemy contributed specific doctrines, data, or methods to the development of astrology, because almost any isolated statement in the [I]Tetrabiblos...is paralleled in other writers. Ptolemy is unique in his attempt to establish a scientific foundation for astrology..."

Yet this very effort seems to integrate Ptolemy more fully with other Greek intellectual traditions, if not with professional readers of birth charts.

Ptolemy does attempt to get astrology on a more systematic "scientific" (for the 2nd century AD) footing. However, he doesn't completely invent his "science", either; as it builds upon earlier Greek research in math and astronomy, beliefs in the four humours, cause-and-effect relationships, and faith in rational thought as a means of making sense of the cosmos. This does contrast with Babylonians who saw the planets and eclipses as a system of omens dropped by gods who were fundamentally capricious and uninterested in human lives.

I also wish to stress the point that Ptolemy's project seems so different from Valens. Valens really doesn't get into what Robert Schmidt termed "universal astrology" (mundane, meteorological, geographical) yet these are legitimate pursuits for astrologers that do not require reference to individual birth charts. Astro-meteorology has a long Greek tradition, going back to authors like Hesiod (Works and Days) and Aratus (Phaenomena) prior to the introduction of astrology proper into the Hellenized world. so Mr. Pt. connects to that tradition, as well.

I've come across heated debates in the past (possibly at Skyscript, I don't recall) as to possible links between Vedic and Hellenistic astrology; and which one is older. If memory serves, Benjamin Dykes sees a link via the Persian empire. One of those classical authors refers to Vedic practices and traveled to India-- I gotta run now, but perhaps you recall which one.

Cheers!

[dr. farr]

Al-Biruni (1058 AD) travelled to India and wrote a book about it, and included "Hindu" astrological concepts and methods in his "Book of Instructions in the Elements of the Art of Astrology". Of course, on the other side, we have the 149 AD "Yavanajitaka", ("Greek Astrology"), considered an important classical book in Vedic astrology, and then, we have Varahamihira (6th century, considered-along with Parasara and Jaimini-as a leading contributor to early jyotish) who specifically incorporates (by his own admisssion) Roman and Greek elements in his Brihat Jataka (one of the 3 or 4 foundational classics of Vedic astrology)

[waybread]

Al-Biruni must be the one I was thinking of. I have a copy of his book. It also occurs to me that anyone traveling by sea from the eastern coast of Egypt (where our Alexandrain astrologers lived) could get to India by going down the Red Sea, and then coast-wise around the Arabian peninsula; with Iran (Persia) located part way in between, and just east of those Babylonians. No doubt astrological ideas did travel around this part of the world.

[JUPITERASC]

Ptolemy and Ancient Astronomy

Synopsis

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b017528d_303_170.jpg (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/images/episode/b017528d_640_360.jpg) Melvyn Bragg and his guests discuss the ancient Greek astronomer and mathematician Ptolemy, and consider how and why his geocentric theory of the universe held sway for so many centuries. In his seminal astronomical work, the Almagest, written in the 2nd century AD, Ptolemy proposed that the Earth was at the centre of the universe...

Ptolemy's model of the universe remained the dominant one for over a thousand years. It was not until 1543, and Copernicus's heliocentric theory of the world, that the Ptolemaic model was finally challenged, and not until 1609 that Johannes Kepler's New Astronomy put an end to his ideas for good. But how and why did Ptolemy's system survive for so long?

[deleted overly long quote against forum rules - Moderator]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017528d :smile:

[waybread]

Interesting question. Mine is, why do some astrologers think Vettius Valens was the real article-- a practicing astrologer-- when many of the charts he cited couldn't have been his own clients?

[dr. farr]

I think I might have answered that in my previous post-Valens was passing on the doctrines/methods of the particular school he belonged to (notice his astrologers oath and other remarks he makes about practicing astrologers) However, Valens might just have been a hack transcriber of this material-Ptolemy was a creative genius (regardless of what we think about the model he created) Me? Well, since I am only a scavenger of information and methods, I appreciate Valens-even if he were merely a hack scribe-for passing on information likely derived from his school (or circle) of practitioners (Robert Zoller, in his 2 volume study of the ancient "Liber Hermetis", adduces some inferences that Valen's material might have ultimately been sourced to a master Egyptian text or document, from which the "Liber Hermetis" also derived)
Oh, if we only had Nechepso's and Petosiris' "Great Celestial Handbook" (c150 BC) before us, so much about the earliest sources, concepts and methodologies of Hellenistic astrology would be known!
Alas, only a few extracts from that seminal work remain:sad:...

[Imitation_Scorpion]

Studying the ancient world, Ptolomey is actualy a family name, and can't be traced to just one man.

But what i've read about him as an individual as that he was simply at the library of alexandria, and wasn't an astrologer, Just a scribe and an astronomer. (ironically learned that from carl sagan)

If you want something interesting to help, i'd suggest reading,
"Carmen astrologicum" By Dorotheus of sidon. (David pingree verson)

Its got a lot of formulas and examples of specific occurrences and general effects. Its very very text book and cut and dry, Especially for back then.

[waybread]

Sorry, but the Ptolemy who wrote the Almagest and Tetrabiblos is pretty much identified as one man. His full name was Claudius Ptolemy (or variants.) And not to be confused with Egyptian rulers of the same name.

I have addressed the argument against Ptolemy so many times that I have neither the time nor the heart to repeat it here. Hopefully you can locate my previous posts on this matter.

Thanks for the reference. I have a copy.

[JUPITERASC]

Studying the ancient world, Ptolomey is actualy a family name, and can't be traced to just one man.

But what i've read about him as an individual as that he was simply at the library of alexandria, and wasn't an astrologer, Just a scribe and an astronomer. (ironically learned that from carl sagan)

If you want something interesting to help, i'd suggest reading,
"Carmen astrologicum" By Dorotheus of sidon. (David pingree verson)

Its got a lot of formulas and examples of specific occurrences and general effects. Its very very text book and cut and dry, Especially for back then.

Ptolemy being discussed currently at this link http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6433&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60
one of the comments Chris Brennan makes is as follows:

"The question of Ptolemy’s preferred method of house division came up on the discussion forum on Skyscript recently. I said that I had always thought that Robert Schmidt did an adequate job in his translation of the Tetrabiblos in pointing out the instances in which Ptolemy clearly employed whole sign houses. I suggested that anyone who wishes to argue that Ptolemy was not using whole sign houses needs to tally up every single instance in which he uses the word “zōidion” to refer to a house/place, and then explain how exactly these reference should not be understood..."

[deleted quote from another forum over 100 words against forum rules - Moderator]

link to Chris Brennan's article "Did Ptolemy Use Whole Sign Houses?" http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/techniques/did-ptolemy-use-whole-sign-houses/ :smile:

[waybread]

I'm going out of town for a long weekend, but next week I will probably respond to Chris Brennan's article.

Unfortunately he posits his own "cage match": whole signs vs. a quadrant system. This binary is not helpful, because a lot of Tetrabiblos suggests that Ptolemy avoided using houses for all kinds of determinations in which we would use houses today. Brennan admits as much. Also, since he does not look outside the whole-signs or quadrant box, he doesn't consider that sometimes Ptolemy might not have necessarily intended a match-up of houses and signs, and that he doesn't address the issue of house cusps at all except in one passage in III: 10 (his 11) that has been read as an argument for whole-signs.

[dr. farr]

House cusps in whole and Equal are always the projected points of the ascending degree; this emphasis on the ascendant and its degree is significant (in my readings) for both the Hellenists and the Vedics; actually, in predictive work, and in using whole sign, we are provided with 2 sensitive areas for each house: one, the cusp and the second, the border of the sign/house, both of which places (cusp and border) can potentially become activated by planetary aspects (or planetary conjunctions) to them.

PS: enjoy your happy long weekend and have a great time:biggrin:!

[waybread]

Thanks, Dr. Farr. We did!

Dr. Farr (or anyone) have you come across anything on the origins of the house system? Any house system. Babylonians didn't use houses. Prior to Hellenization, the Egyptians didn't really have horoscopic astrology, so far as I can determine. Prior to the intro of astrology from the East, the Greeks didn't have astrology. Both the Egyptians and Greeks made elaborate use of the heavens as an agricultural and religious calendar, but that's different than reading a nativity.

There is a big question in my mind as to why houses should be numbered counter-clockwise. Sure, houses are stationary, but even so, we run into problems with considering a (geocentrically) rotating progression of signs or stars, where they wouldn't match up 100% with 30-degree houses most of the time. Any ideas on this, anyone?

So we face the prospect of a horoscope not even being a stylized picture of the heavens with a whole-sign division, because it wouldn't account for the visual effect of signs rotating through 6 fixed 30-degree pie sectors.

Alternatively, if we view the houses as not-fixed, but rotating slightly to accommodate rotating signs for a 100% fit, then I don't see much discussion of that in ancient sources, either.

So the conclusion I'm left with is that signs-and-houses were not to be taken literally as a stylized picture of the heavens. (This would be further reinforced by some of the early verbal-only or square horoscopes.)

So what sort of picture was it, then? I think it was more of a mythological picture, based upon myths, such as Demeter-Persephone, Isis-Osiris, Orpheus-Eurydice. These have reference both to the agricultural and seasonal calendars, as well as to metaphors for human life. While each myth varies in its particulars, they all map pretty well onto the theme of the dying god who is reborn, the agricultural calendar, and spiritual metaphors for the soul's passage.

If we look at the esoteric mystery cults of the ancient Mediterranean world, some of them gave the analogy that the soul's true home was not this-world. Being born on earth was comparable to a descent into hell, because earthly life was inherently difficult. Dying to earthly life was essentially a return to the soul's higher disembodied state.

So a goddess like Persephone is portrayed as living on earth with her mother, being abducted into the underworld by Hades, and eventually being returned to her mother Demeter for part of the year-- constantly alternating between the two modalities. Esoterically, "earth" is heaven (or something comparable) and the underworld is actually earthly life. Persephone, then, is a metaphor for the human soul.

A lot of esoteric lore was hush-hush and for initiates only; which is why it isn't directly spelled out.

So if we take this metaphor, we can apply it to the houses as they were named in antiquity.

The following is only a rough and speculative sketch-- I would really appreciate feedback or recommended references.

12. Some of the early sources (like Manilius) actually started with the 12th in their house enumerations. It is the worst house, symbolically representing the soul's entry into this care-ridden world. Manilius identifies this house of the "bad spirit" or "daimon" with Typhon. Intriguingly, Typhon (Seth) was an Egyptian god of drought and destruction, seemingly perpetually battling the good forces of Isis and Osiris. Some of the Hermetic literature (Mead, Thrice-Great Hermes) gives a tradition that Typhon, Osiris, and Horus were daimons, and not properly gods!

1. The ascendant, the point of incarnation, symbolized as the horizon. Indicated as a point, an angle, and/or a house.

2. One early name for the second house was "the Gates of Hell". Another one was "provision of life"--i.e., material goods. The link here is that Hades (Dis, Pluto) not only ruled the underworld, but also the riches that the ground produced. Here Persephone (or her other mythological counterparts) has passed into earth-as-hell.

3. The house of the lunar goddess or the house of brothers. A cadent house, sometimes also seen as misfortunate. All kinds of potential associations here: the Graeco-Roman Hecate (waning moon), Egyptian Nepthysis (subteranean phase of Isis), Babylonian Erishkegal. One Hermetic view is that Osiris and Dionysius were lunar gods-- both characterized by myths of death and resurrection. In Egyptian lore, Anubis (jackal-headed god of the dead) Osiris, and Typhon were brothers. Manilius: the moon "reflects human mortality in the dying edges of her face." [i.e., her waning moon phase.]

4. In Egyptian, the house of the "lake of dwat", which was a region of the sky around the constellation Orion, visible in winter. The father-- but also in the sense of patrimony and inheritance of land, another earth-bound tradition.

5. The good spirit. Children. Part of the Isis and Osiris and Demeter mystery cults involked the birth of a miraculous child: Horus to Isis and Iachus or Brimus to Demeter or Persephone.

6. a misfortunate house involving illness. Here the body is ageing.

7. In some Hellenistic/Egyptian horoscopes (discussed by Neugebauer), this was called the house of fate-- not the house of marriage! In Egyptian lore, one's fate was decided at death by a group of gods, depending upon how one had lived. In Graeco-Roman lore, one's fate was decided by the Moirae (fates) at birth. But here in a counter-clockwise house system, we see the disincarnating soul.

8. The house of death. The disincarnate body then ascends to...

9. The house of God. Note that houses 9, 10, and 11 are all very fortunate. (cf. the modern association of house #9 with theology.) The Egyptian sun-god or Apollo at the top of the ecliptic.

10. MC "midheaven"

11. House of the good spirit. Might be Osiris, who was called a Daimon in one part of the Hermetic literature.

12. In the 12th the soul prepares once more for its next incarnation, regarded as a misfortunate prospect.

These esoteric house meanings vanished with non-initiate astrologers more interested in interpreting human life in material terms. Ptolemy was determined to make astrology into a more "scientific" discipline.

So far as I know, houses were far less common in mundane and electional astrology, as well as astro-meteorology. Probably because the myths-- if operative in astrology-- really refer to spiritual matters about the human soul.

[JUPITERASC]

here's a link to a very new skyscript discussion on the subject of an ancient text known as the Salmeschoiniaka :smile:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6257

"The Salmeschoiniaka: The Original House System?"

QUOTE
"I am intrigued by the ancient text known as the Salmeschoiniaka which appears to be the earliest text on the astrological houses mentioning topics or areas of life in a work on horoscopic astrology. The text is traditionally associated with Nechepso and Petosiris legendary founders of horoscopic astrology along with Hermes Trismegistus. Only fragments of this work survive, but fortunately a piece quoted by Hephaistio of Thebes employs the 36 decans as places having governance over special issues. (II 18 [219"

[dr. farr]

I have been led by my esoteric studies (and by certain associations with esoteric lines of tradition) to conclude that "houses" (the domification matter) were orgininally derived from mythological and numerological (neo-Pythagorean) considerations, rather than from astronomical considerations-I largely agree with Waybread's take on this matter as expressed in the above post; I also believe that examples of these initial "signs/houses" as based upon these considerations (mythological/numerological) are to be found in the equator based, non-asterism connected, fixed decans (10 degree "equal houses') of the Egyptians and also in the equator based 72 facets (5 degree "equal houses") of the earlier Babylonians.
I believe that astrology was originally a "temple science" and was used for practical purposes in "drawing down" the "above" to the "below", and that after the ancient civilizations collapsed, what remaining knowledge survived from the destroyed temples, began to be disseminated among initiatic groups, and also began to be applied (or modelled) into applications for individuals (beginnings of natal horoscopy), possibly around the 5th century BC (in the West).

[waybread]

Dr. Farr, can you say more on this?

The Egyptian systems of star calendars, decans and exaltation are pretty well written up (Joanne Conman's article on the Kepler College website, Robert Schmidt, "House Division, Planetary Strength, and Cusps in Hellenistic Astrology at www.accessnewage.com/articles/astro/houses.htm (http://www.accessnewage.com/articles/astro/houses.htm) .)

My take on the problem comes from prior reading on Greek and Roman mythology, with forays info neighbouring cultures. I think Manilius was hinting at some of the esoteric meaning of houses with his "temples", which sometimes have exact parallels with Hellenistic mythology and sometimes with Egyptian mythology. Further digging may reveal more commonalities. He also has links to older traditions of star calendars and has a very mythical/religious take on the heavens.

We have to ask ourselves, why should Manilius and other early astrologers identify the 2nd house with both the entrance to the underworld and the source of material wealth? Why should the 4th house be called "the house of the father"?

We have "the house of the good spirit" (daimon) and "the house of the bad spirit." Does anybody ask who were they? Were there actual spirits that could be named?

We aren't going to find the answers somehow up in the sky.

I think Manilius was working in pieces of several myths-- further digging may enable them to be sorted out.

The so-called "rape of Persephone" story absolutely fits with the concept of the second house as the "Gates of Hell" and simultaneously the sources of wealth. Both were the god Pluto's dominions.

Why should Neugebauer's (1943) discussion of 4 papyrus horoscopes from the 1st century AD simultaneously translate the 4th house as "the lake of dwat" (or duat) and the house of the father? This fits pretty well with Osirus myths. "Dwat" was the underworld. "Lake" probably refered to a region of the sky, but it fundamentally refered to the Egyptian underworld. Well, not bad for the IC-- but the father?

We find one answer in myths of Osiris and his father Re (Ra), and of Horus and his father Osiris. Both depict the solar cycle. The solar god in the underworld (under the horizons) becomes assimilated to his father in a way that spiritualizes and empowers them both (cf. Jesus saying, "The Father and I are one" or his transfiguration.) Osiris was often depicted as ruler of the underworld, notably in terms of judgement of the dead. The empowered son becomes transfigured. The reborn young son then moves into the 5th house-- the house of the child.

The whole thing works, further, if we put north at the top of the chart, at the MC. The MC=south makes sense, because north of the equatorial zone, the sun will appears to be in the south, although it visibly moves north and south.

Ptolemy put north at the top of his famous map of the known world, although many map makers before and since did not.

With north at the top, the West (Egyptian land of the dead) is on the left-hand where we place the ascendant. The East (land of the sun's rebirth) is on the right-hand. With a re-oriented chart (original meaning covers both horoscope and map) we can trace the voyage of the solar god, vegetation cycle, or human soul through various stages.

In Egyptian lore, South was good--the source of the Nile. The north was bad (where the life-giving Nile vanished into the sea.) As the soul descends into the West/land of the dead (like the sun), it enters the gates of the underworld (2nd house.)

The house of the goddess (#3) somehow becomes the house of brothers. Again, we won't find the answer in the sky-- nor most likely, with numerology. There are all kinds of potential associations here, because Egyptian mythology was not uniform or orthodox: many stories, many versions.

The Egyptians believed the sun traveled around its course on a boat (bark), and that the goddess Isis protected it during the day; and her sister/underworld persona Nepthys protected it during the night. Against what? Well, Osiris's trickster, disruptive brother Seth, for one. In the underworld, the soul further meets Osiris's brother Anubis. god of embalmers.

So all of this mythology disappears under Hellenistic astrologers fixated on telling clients how long they will live, whether they would die in some gruesome manner, or whether they will inherit Dad's money. The house names remain, but not the religious symbolism.

Ptolemy further distances himself from house systems. This would make sense if he were clued into their religious, esoteric meanings. His whole project was to render astrology more scientific. Notably, he says next-to-nothing about houses 2-6, in which I believe the Egyptian mythology of the dead was most pronounced.

I think this thesis also explains why he doesn't address houses in mundane and other non-genethliacal forms of astrology. The solar passage/soul's passage has no meaning in their contexts.

[byjove]

You two might do this forever.

JupiterASC and myself particularly will drop by and join in whenever there's a gap in the cage. :whistling:

I might add that if we could have gotten Ptolemy and Valens to do exactly this ...wow!

[JUPITERASC]

You two might do this forever.

JupiterASC and myself particularly will drop by and join in whenever there's a gap in the cage. :whistling:

I might add that if we could have gotten Ptolemy and Valens to do exactly this ...wow!
Another link for you byjove "Early Egyptian Constellations - The Decan Stars" http://members.westnet.com.au/Gary-David-Thompson/page11-18.html :smile:

[byjove]

Thank you Jupiter,

I mean to reply when someone links something of interest! I read everything you link!

As for the wider discussion, I've been referring a lot recently to an astro. site online linked to me. The gentleman has some strong views (especially against reliance on dignity...) but is clearly a very well-read man and an experienced, practicing astrologer (that one wasn't a poke a Ptolemy!)

Anyway, I just found he's addressed what's been discussed here and in several related threads. He, an astrologer who follows the Hellenistic tradition and holds Persian (Arabic as the rest of us are used to seeing) in high regard, writes that even Hellenistics weren't all in agreement on things, and perhaps less so than today...so, I think he's saying, great stuff, very original/seminal, but note the imperfections too...

http://www.sevenstarsastrology.com/ancient-astrologers-agree-paradigms-chart-lords/

[waybread]

I just loved this post by "Anthony", byjove. Spot on.

This is why it is important to distinguish between "Hellenistic" or "ancient" astrology, and the neo-Hellenistic distillate that some traditionalists posit today.

[dr. farr]

Nothing unusual in this: classical Vedic astrology also had a significant amount of variances and differences: Parasara, Jaimini, Varahamihira, held common concepts and also held variant concepts and methodologies: classical Vedic astrology was not a monolith, just as ancient Hellenistic astrology was not a monolith.

I also believe that attempting a distillation and reformulation of elements taken from Hellenistic astrological traditions is a positive thing: its kind of eclectic in essence, and I support such efforts. Practical astrology is not an academic historical review: it is a practical methodology to try to get RESULTS (in delineative analysis and prediction): those who are trying to distill "what works" from material drawn from the old time authors, I think are undertaking a very wothwhile project, and I wish them well. I, of course, have no such agenda (trying to set up any kind of system, such as neo-Hellenism) because I am merely a pure utilitarian eclectic, but I do think efforts by the neo-Hellenists in creating a systematic approach based on elements taken from the divergent Greco/Roman authors, is interesting and worthwhile.

[JUPITERASC]

Thank you Jupiter, I mean to reply when someone links something of interest! I read everything you link!
thank you byjove, glad to be of any assistance and 'tis good to have appreciative feedback :smile:

As for the wider discussion, I've been referring a lot recently to an astro. site online linked to me. The gentleman has some strong views (especially against reliance on dignity...) but is clearly a very well-read man and an experienced, practicing astrologer (that one wasn't a poke a Ptolemy!)

Anyway, I just found he's addressed what's been discussed here and in several related threads. He, an astrologer who follows the Hellenistic tradition and holds Persian (Arabic as the rest of us are used to seeing) in high regard, writes that even Hellenistics weren't all in agreement on things, and perhaps less so than today...so, I think he's saying, great stuff, very original/seminal, but note the imperfections too...

http://www.sevenstarsastrology.com/ancient-astrologers-agree-paradigms-chart-lords/
An interesting read byjove, many thanks.

As to agreement amongst astrologers... I predict that to occur on the day when snow survives a landing on an active volcanic eruption!
Nothing unusual in this: classical Vedic astrology also had a significant amount of variances and differences: Parasara, Jaimini, Varahamihira, held common concepts and also held variant concepts and methodologies: classical Vedic astrology was not a monolith, just as ancient Hellenistic astrology was not a monolith.

I also believe that attempting a distillation and reformulation of elements taken from Hellenistic astrological traditions is a positive thing: its kind of eclectic in essence, and I support such efforts. Practical astrology is not an academic historical review: it is a practical methodology to try to get RESULTS (in delineative analysis and prediction): those who are trying to distill "what works" from material drawn from the old time authors, I think are undertaking a very wothwhile project, and I wish them well. I, of course, have no such agenda (trying to set up any kind of system, such as neo-Hellenism) because I am merely a pure utilitarian eclectic, but I do think efforts by the neo-Hellenists in creating a systematic approach based on elements taken from the divergent Greco/Roman authors, is interesting and worthwhile.
I would agree that a practical methodology designed to obtain results in delineative analysis and prediction is the most important factor :smile:

[waybread]

Nothing unusual in this: classical Vedic astrology also had a significant amount of variances and differences: Parasara, Jaimini, Varahamihira, held common concepts and also held variant concepts and methodologies: classical Vedic astrology was not a monolith, just as ancient Hellenistic astrology was not a monolith.

I also believe that attempting a distillation and reformulation of elements taken from Hellenistic astrological traditions is a positive thing: its kind of eclectic in essence, and I support such efforts. Practical astrology is not an academic historical review: it is a practical methodology to try to get RESULTS (in delineative analysis and prediction): those who are trying to distill "what works" from material drawn from the old time authors, I think are undertaking a very wothwhile project, and I wish them well. I, of course, have no such agenda (trying to set up any kind of system, such as neo-Hellenism) because I am merely a pure utilitarian eclectic, but I do think efforts by the neo-Hellenists in creating a systematic approach based on elements taken from the divergent Greco/Roman authors, is interesting and worthwhile.

No argument here, but I have found some proponents assuming a unified system of Hellenistic astrology in the past, or presenting what they do today as the Hellenistic tradition.

[byjove]

Waybread: yes that is exactly what the author of the above link points out, that as tremendously important as Hellenistic material is, they were not as unified as is being said now. I say this in a welcoming way; I'm more comfortable with difference when I read this.

JupiterASC, yes, that link I particularly wanted to point out to you, it was linked to me recently on another thread. Check out his section on over-reliance and misinterpretation on dignity and debility, I don't know how much I agree yet but I'm very moved by the arguements...

[JUPITERASC]

Waybread: yes that is exactly what the author of the above link points out, that as tremendously important as Hellenistic material is, they were not as unified as is being said now. I say this in a welcoming way; I'm more comfortable with difference when I read this.

JupiterASC, yes, that link I particularly wanted to point out to you, it was linked to me recently on another thread. Check out his section on over-reliance and misinterpretation on dignity and debility, I don't know how much I agree yet but I'm very moved by the arguements...
Good to view an opinion written by someone who clearly is well acquainted with the matter byjove :smile:

He is saying that it is evident that simply because up to date translations to English are in the main attributable solely to Schmidt, we are constrained by Schmidt's personal interpretations which have resulted in "Hellenistic Astrology" being unsurprisingly mostly regarded as 'set in stone' and considered as having been easily delineated in specific ways by all ancient astrologers.

However it is common knowledge that often much is 'lost in translation' therefore unless everyone learns Ancient Greek that's just one of the pitfalls of not reading the subject in the original language.

It has been so interesting to read Mark Riley's alternative offering - even though as Riley himself admits, it is 'full of errors'.

Schmidt is not an astrologer and neither is Mark Riley. Schmidt is a Classics scholar and Mark Riley is a mathematician and linguist :smile:

[waybread]

Actually, Mark T. Riley is a retired professor of Latin in the foreign languages department at Sacramento State University. www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt (http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt)

Does anyone know what is Robert Schmidt's actual educational background? University degrees? He doesn't write like someone with an academic background in history.

[JUPITERASC]

Actually, Mark T. Riley is a retired professor of Latin in the foreign languages department at Sacramento State University. www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt (http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt)
Those are not mutually exclusive! Mark T Riley is a mathematician and linguist:smile:

Does anyone know what is Robert Schmidt's actual educational background? University degrees? He doesn't write like someone with an academic background in history.
someone at skyscript would have the answer - there is a thread discussing Hellenistic astrology there at the moment http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6433&start=90 :smile:

[waybread]

As you know, I have been participating on that thread regularly.

Maybe it depends how you define "mathematician." I've never met Riley but I see that he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Tertullian in the Department of Classics at Stanford, and taught Latin, at least prior to his retirement. Scholars in one field will oftentimes cross boundaries into another, but usually their doctoral work and university appointments define their disciplinary identities.

[JUPITERASC]

As you know, I have been participating on that thread regularly.

Maybe it depends how you define "mathematician." I've never met Riley but I see that he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Tertullian in the Department of Classics at Stanford, and taught Latin, at least prior to his retirement. Scholars in one field will oftentimes cross boundaries into another, but usually their doctoral work and university appointments define their disciplinary identities.
Nevertheless, as you are participating on that thread then its a good opportunity to ask the experts also participating on that thread. You'll find that Mark T. Riley is a linguist and mathematician :smile:

[dr. farr]

..and I am just a homeopath! No degree in linguistics or methematics or history. So what? Until astrology is accepted by academia in its own right (which AINT ever gonna happen!), exploration in this field is open to anyone who takes the time and makes the effort to explore: what they say should be subject to informed scrutiny, and it should be WHAT they say that is looked at and examined, NOT the conventional, mainstream "level" of education the person saying so might have (obviously this does NOT apply to those doing translations, here their credentials relative to languages must be an important factor; but until we have academic degrees in astrology from mainstream universities, there are no academic credentials to "certify" one's capacities and knowledge and insights in astrology, or alchemy, or hermeticism, or divination, or in any other of these metaphysical fields of endeavor)

(Note: apparaently Schmidt has degrees from St. John's College)

[JUPITERASC]

..and I am just a homeopath! No degree in linguistics or methematics or history. So what? Until astrology is accepted by academia in its own right (which AINT ever gonna happen!), exploration in this field is open to anyone who takes the time and makes the effort to explore: what they say should be subject to informed scrutiny, and it should be WHAT they say that is looked at and examined, NOT the conventional, mainstream "level" of education the person saying so might have (obviously this does NOT apply to those doing translations, here their credentials relative to languages must be an important factor; but until we have academic degrees in astrology from mainstream universities, there are no academic credentials to "certify" one's capacities and knowledge and insights in astrology, or alchemy, or hermeticism, or divination, or in any other of these metaphysical fields of endeavor)

(Note: apparaently Schmidt has degrees from St. John's College)
for waybread, academia is more important. The experts at skyscript shall have chapter and verse regarding Schmidt's qualifications.
Reading the link http://www.csus.edu/fl/latin/Mark_%20Riley.htm we find the reasons Mark T Riley made these papers freely available in .pdf format

QUOTE: The following papers were written for publication in Temporini and Haase, eds., Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt II 36.7 (DeGruyer, Berlin). This series seems defunct. Therefore I am making these papers available in .pdf format:

"A Survey of Vettius Valens" - Vettius Valens' Anthologiae is the longest extant astrological work from antiquity.It is unique in several respects: the author was a practicing astrologer; the work includes more than 100 authentic horoscopes of Valens' clients or associates, including his own, which is used as an example many times throughout the work;the work also includes tables and the description of algorithms used by astrologers and mathematicians. My paper was finished in 1996 and does not take account of scholarship since that time” ENDQUOTE

Clearly, Mark T Riley is of the opinion that Valens is unique in being a practicing astrologer whose work is the longest extant astrological work from antiquity :smile:

[waybread]

Look, JupiterAsc, just because I cook dinner for my husband and me doesn't make me a professional chef.

As I indicated above, academics oftentimes apply their field of extertise to other topics, in a cross-fertilization and even cross-disciplinary kind of way. Then most fields are internally varied. Classical studies is a huge field, so we find its scholars writing about Greek and Roman philosophy, poetry, governance, religion, trade, and what have you. This doesn't mean classicists are ticketed philosophers, poets, theologians, economists, and so on. Then linguistics is its own field, oftentimes taught in anthropology departments. So for a classics professor to write about mathematics in antiquity doesn't make him a mathematician, unless s/he also practices mathematics or has an advanced degree in mathematics.

I wouldn't think any of this matters, except that if a given author has a graduate degree or two in a particular field, let alone if s/he has taught it as a tenured professor at a research university, it does indicate a certain level of expertise in research methods that the average astrologer cannot match.

I don't think the average person is aware of how high the bar is for the permanent university faculty in research institutions. In the US and Canadian systems, a Ph. D. is the minimum admission pass to employment, which occurs at the untenured assistant professor level. Ever hear of "publish or perish"? Faculty at research universities are indeed expected to publish their research. In order to get published in academic journals and most academic book publishers, there is a double-blind peer review process and the most prestigious journals and book publishers have high rejection rates. The academics' work may be further criticized in the literature and professional society conferences by other experts in their field.

In most fields today, faculty are also expected to write grant proposals and have a decent success rate in attracting external funding in order to fund their research and their grad student advisees. (And in some fields, post-docs.) Some of these grants are also highly competitive.

Then faculty undergo annual merit reviews, and the newer faculty face a brutal tenure process around year 6 of their appointments, with additional external experts scrutinizing the quality and quantity of their research and with three in-house panels of peers reviewing their files. Some of the assistant professors don't make the cut, and then they have to look for another job, whether within or outside of academia.

If these faculty members do get tenure, they get job security and a promotion to associate professor rank, but the research and writing process continues, with their colleagues heaping scorn upon any Professor Deadwood who fails to keep up this regimen. In mid-career many faculty undergo yet another round of serious internal and external evaluation of their body of research if they seek promotion to full professor status.

All of this research work occurs on top of teaching classes, individual student advising, committee work, and oftentimes administrative appointments.

So while the average professor normally wouldn't know as much about astrology as a professional astrologer would, the scholar would normally know a heck of a lot more about research methodologies and his/her own field of relevant expertise, be it Latin or mathematics. S/he would probably have rigorous standards for presenting facts, simply because s/he is so used to constant critical feedback from experts in the specialized research sub-field. [The one exception here is the scientists' uninformed lampoons of astrology, but I don't think you will find this in the humanities. We also have to distinguish between scientsts writing popular pieces vs. advanced physics or chemistry for their peers.]

Moreover, the astrology basics are not that difficult to learn. Translators of ancient texts will often seek feedback from other experts prior to publication, in any event, to develop the best possible translation.

This is why I get annoyed sometimes if I read an astrologer's post or article and find him assuming things about the past that are simply incorrect, or making blanket assumptions based upon the slenderest kind of evidence. Normally I don't hold astrologers to academic standards, but occasionally they develop a whole belief set about the past that really needs some kind of scrutiny.

I also find it fascinating that some older, well-established astrologers decided to return to accredited universities to earn their doctorates: astrologers like Robert Hand, Liz Greene, and Nicholas Campion. I think they figured out that there is a bigger league out there than the closed-in xenophobic, "they won't understand us anyway" world inhabited by some astrologers.

Do I make mistakes in interpreting astrology's history? For sure. Hopefully we are all here to learn and correct any misconceptions. This is exactly how the give-and-take of dialogue furthers the advance of knowledge.

[waybread]

..and I am just a homeopath! No degree in linguistics or methematics or history. So what? Until astrology is accepted by academia in its own right (which AINT ever gonna happen!), exploration in this field is open to anyone who takes the time and makes the effort to explore: what they say should be subject to informed scrutiny, and it should be WHAT they say that is looked at and examined, NOT the conventional, mainstream "level" of education the person saying so might have (obviously this does NOT apply to those doing translations, here their credentials relative to languages must be an important factor; but until we have academic degrees in astrology from mainstream universities, there are no academic credentials to "certify" one's capacities and knowledge and insights in astrology, or alchemy, or hermeticism, or divination, or in any other of these metaphysical fields of endeavor)

(Note: apparaently Schmidt has degrees from St. John's College)

Thanks, Dr. Farr.

With regard to my previous post, hopefully you can see the problem. Astrology isn't going to be accepted by the academy until astrology raises its bar. Nor should it be accepted. You are well aware of all of the pop-schlock astrology out there. University English departments teach great literature, not Harlequin romances or the syntax of the average text message.

The humanities departments do seem to be opening the door to astrological topics. Generally the focus is not on astrology applied, but on astrology in literature or in history. Ditto for alchemy and hermeticism. The academic research doesn't seem to be on how one practices them, but on what they meant to particular authors or societies.

There is some social science research on people who believe in astrology, as well.

I wish some of the astrologers doing translations had more background in history. I think the contextual background for their work would be very helpful.

I suspect that some accredited universities would permit an undergraduate interdisciplinary Independent Studies major in astrology if the student took a good sampling of history, astronomy, and psychology classes; plus tutorials with an astrologer who could meet the university's standards for adjunct faculty (normally at least a Master's degree.)

University education is not a perfect system. There are no perfect systems. However, it does offer some level of rigour that would benefit serious astrologers.

[sandstone]

jup asc - thanks for the link to rileys site.. the pdf file "A Survey of Vettius Valens (http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/PDF_folder/VettiusValens.PDF)" is a good read..

i agree with waybread over the concerns they express and do think these are worth considering.. it doesn't mean i agree that anyone who does astrology needs to have a phd for me to want to read or learn from them, but i think it is helpful background info that will give me a better perspective on where they are coming from.. one could say it is an elitist attitude to think only those works that have been written or interpreted by scholars are worthy of attention and yet there is some merit in this position. maybe robert schmidt got in a time machine and travelled back in time for all i know, but it is interesting there is no available information on his background.. i also find it interesting how he was one of a few people that started a book publishing company and latched onto focusing on ancient astrology exclusively.. why was this? i also find it interesting that schmidt, hand and zoeller who had started the project hindsight didn't stay together for very long.. why was that? i think there are enough questions that raise more and i think it is fair to want more info on schmidt..

waybread, i just wanted to mention regarding the books you are reading and working thru that the joseph crane book is more of a compilation of ideas that might be useful for someone wanting to apply the methods.. i don't know if it will help enlighten your search for the historical roots of house systems for example.. i note on the link to the page up above on rileys 'a survey of valens' on the bottom of page 10 a comment that you have probably read, but you might want to go over it for another take on the ongoing question of how the houses came about...

i also note on the skyscript thread which i continue to follow how there is an angst towards the question of which direction the houses are going - clockwise or counter-clockwise.. it would seem some folks would prefer not to consider these 2 different directions as a background reason for some of the nature of the houses and yet, these same folks will use the 2 directions as rationale for how they arrive at their conclusions.. the example of 2nd house the gate of hades, verses 8th house of death and the sun setting was a good example of this and i liked the fact you questioned this and asked why it would apply to the 8th and not the 7th.. the quick rationale for it not applying to the 7th is that the 7th is an angular house, but this type of logic seems very circular to me.. this means this, but this other house 'can't mean that because of this' rule or what have you..

my impression is that most astrologers don't give these issues that much consideration, but generally accept the doctrines handed down to them and try applying them in there work.. hopefully i am wrong on this, but i am not sure that i am! it is only when someone comes along with a radically different idea such as for example - only 8 houses, not 12 and going clockwise not counter clockwise that astrologers are pushed into taking a closer look at the basis of house systems.. i can't remember who it was - fagen or? who suggested house systems from antiquity went clockwise, but this was before all the literature was made available thru project hindsight and etc..

i have not read valens, but joseph crane has and goes into explaining some of his techniques, some of them very obscure and some more quickly usable... the link above seems to articulate that valens was a compiler of many other astrologers and astrology authors.. i don't know if i had read that before, but i can't recall reading it anywhere either unless you had mentioned it.. it is almost like valens is this larger then life astrologer when in fact it seems according to riley he was also a compiler like ptolemy, but of a different sort!

[waybread]

James, thanks for your thoughtful post!

For sure, just because someone with a Ph. D. says "x=y" doesn't make it so. We might even call it a fallacy ad hominem or the fallacy of an appeal to authority. But learning about someone's background in most circumstances is helpful in understanding where they are coming from, because it so often influences how and what they write. There is text and then there is sub-text. Both are informative.

Thanks for the info. on the Crane book. Actually I read something by him on the Internet where he took a well-known Hellenistic astrologer to task for not footnoting his work. Sounds like my kind of guy!

Ironically, this same Hellenistic astrologer elsewhere (in an astrology magazine) criticized another traditional astrolger for essentially plagiarizing his work! This is where minimal academic standards could really further the project of any kind of astrology. I like footnotes because if I want to pursue a topic further, or understand more about how an author reached a conclusion, I can see where to look. At a base level, footnotes acknowledge another author's contribution by way of preventing plagiarism.

Casual posts on an Internet forum don't need a high level of polish because they are more like letter-writing or a conversation. But even this forum has plagiarism rules. Hopefully an article posted on a blog or something in print can be held to a higher standard.

[JUPITERASC]

jup asc - thanks for the link to rileys site.. the pdf file "A Survey of Vettius Valens (http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/PDF_folder/VettiusValens.PDF)" is a good read..............

...............i have not read valens, but joseph crane has and goes into explaining some of his techniques, some of them very obscure and some more quickly usable... the link above seems to articulate that valens was a compiler of many other astrologers and astrology authors.. i don't know if i had read that before, but i can't recall reading it anywhere either unless you had mentioned it.. it is almost like valens is this larger then life astrologer when in fact it seems according to riley he was also a compiler like ptolemy, but of a different sort!
sandstone IMO there is a crucial difference between Ptolemy and Valens: i.e. (in the words of well known prestigious academic Professor Mark T Riley), "Vettius Valens' Anthologiae is the longest extant astrological work from antiquity.It is unique in several respects: the author was a practicing astrologer; the work includes more than 100 authentic horoscopes of Valens' clients or associates, including his own, which is used as an example many times throughout the work.

Ptolemy did not only compile, in fact, while Ptolemy 'compiled', Ptolemy altered techniques according to personal prejudice/whim: and Ptolemy, mathematician/astronomer and not a practicing astrologer had a different rationale/perspective to that of Valens.

Ptolemy built on the work of Apollonius of Perga who (approximately four centuries earlier than Ptolemy) developed a form of geometric particular methods within the geometrical practice, that are to do with circular motion - as well as motions of circles moving on circles and so on - that Ptolemy then applied to discovering the much sought-after geometrical rationale thought to be underlying appearances Thus Ptolemy described a rationale that 'explained' retrograde motion - but incorrectly - (because the planets do not move with uniform circular motion in circles link to webpage illustrating Ptolemy's incorrect, yet mathematically appealing, idea of the universe http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html )

Valens perspective being that of a practicing astrologer meant that Valens was eager to preserve everything he possibly could intact for the benefit of future astrologers. Valens simply compiled without altering what he compiled.

Certainly Valens commented on the various astrological techniques but crucially, did not alter any. That fact taken in tandem with Valen's work being 'the longest extant astrological work from antiquity' understandably obviously makes Valens an important figure. Crucially, Valens utilised not only his own horoscope but also those of more than a 100 authentic horoscopes of his own clients.

Ptolemy doesn't talk very much about people of his own time, instead he talks about observations made centuries earlier by Hipparchus, another great astronomer - Observations used by Ptolemy are largely Babylonian via Hipparchus

And it was Hipparchus who, a century after Apollonius, began applying the Apollonian geometry in the first attempt to describe the movements of the heavenly spheres geometrically.

Hipparchus took the first steps in attempting to make the Apollonian geometry fit the appearances of the heavens - particularly in relation to the moon and the sun - by developing those moving circles as a technique for dealing with the confusing appearances of the heavens

Ptolemy then expanded on the original ideas of both his predecessors, Apollonius and Hipparchus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Perga

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=337188

Albert Timashev while writing an article entitled "Reconstruction of The Major Egyptian Years" has this to say of Ptolemy:

"Today it is well known that Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy was not a representative of a traditional Greek astrological school and, most likely, he was never a practicing astrologer at all. Ptolemy's work Tetrabiblos reflects his personal and sometimes disputable opinions on many questions." http://www.astrologer.ru/article/mey.html.en

Unlike Ptolemy, Valens was a practicing astrologer who provided evidence of well over a hundred of his own clients horoscopes.

Ptolemy was a mathematical theorist.:smile:

[waybread]

Just to correct (yet again) some of JA's thoughts on Ptolemy.

1. It is important to consider Ptolemy's body of work as a whole. Today we might call him a Renaissance man. In antiquity, our modern divisions of the sciences didn't exist. Ptolemy wrote on optics, harmonics, astronomy, and geography. He was influenced by the "natural philosophy" or "science" of his day. His objective in writing Tetrabiblos was to build a case for astrology that a rational person could believe in, ca. 150 AD. His work included natural cause-and-effect (vs. capricious gods,) the 4 elements of antiquity, and simple geometric relationships.

So it just misses the whole context of ancient science in general and Ptolemy's work in particular to say, "Ptolemy did not only compile, in fact, while Ptolemy 'compiled', Ptolemy altered techniques according to personal prejudice/whim: and Ptolemy, mathematician/astronomer and not a practicing astrologer had a different rationale/perspective to that of Valens".

Let's unpack this assertion.

1. Are you suggesting that the science of Aristotle was nothing more than "personal prejudice/whim"? What about the stoic philosophy that underlies so much ancient astrology of both Valens and Ptolemy? "Personal prejudice/whim"?

I highly recommend chapters 9-14 in Nicholas Campion's The Dawn of Astrology and M. R. Wright's book Ancient Cosmology in Antiquity. These demonstrate to my satisfaction that Ptolemy was far more plugged into the leading intellectual currents of his day than were astrologers who claimed authority through reference back to what were effectively disappearing religious traditions of ancient Egypt and Babylon.

2. In areas where Ptolemy and Valens and/or other practicing astrologers of antiquity agree, would these other astrologers' work then equally be based upon "personal preduce/whim"? Or would you grant Ptolemy some credit where his work and Valens agree?

3. Do you argue that none of the following branches of astrology, today and in antiquity, are real astrology: mundane, elective, meteorological, and geographical? Is the only real astrology genethliacal? Would you discard modern astrologers as legitimate astrologers if they do not include horoscopes in their books?

Much of Ptolemy's work dealt with non-genethliacal branches of astrology.

Francesca Rochberg, who wrote extensively on Babylonian astrology (for example, The Heavenly Writing), noted that hardly any of the genethliacal materials discovered by archaeologists included any interpretation of the planetary positions given. They were merely written lists of placements, not charts. So would these "horoscopes" be in or out of your personal definition of the real astrology? Do you see the "slippery slope"?

4. What is your evidence that the horoscopes in Valens were even his own clients? Or is this an important point for you? Otto Neugebauer dated all of Valens's horoscopes, and noted that some of them were sufficiently older than Valens (who apparently did not take up the study of astrology till around age 40) that they were suspect as his own clients. One can hardly imagine that all of Valen's illustrious horoscopes of anonymous "governors" were from his own client base, given the territorial divisions of the Roman empire.

5. "Mathematician" or even "physicist" was a common description for astrologers in antiquity. The reason is simple to fathom. One had to know a fair bit of math in order to calculate a horoscope. Look at Valens. His work is replete with arithmetic calculations. There is far more arithmetic in Valens's Anthologies than there is in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos.

In the Bible the word for "astrologer" is "Chaldean." Does this mean that everone from this district of modern-day Iraq was a practicing astrologer? Not hardly. Rather, we have to understand word-usage in the context of period and place.

6. Valens must have been a considerable compiler. This seems evident from the different techniques he gives to determine the same question from the horoscope. I haven't worked them through, but I wonder if they even give the same result.

7. So much of the sensationalistic material in Valens is precisely the reason why I cannot take the ancient astrologers literally as models for astrological practice today. If Valens is someone's astrological hero, I would love to know what she makes of all of Valens's sensationalistic material about what rotten people various astrological placements engender, or all of the unusual ways to die.

8. And once more (with feeling,) scholars do build unpon one another's work. They did so in antiquity. This is what the whole edifice of knowledge is based upon! So giving sources for Ptolemy's work essentially says that he did some homework. One wishes that the authors of antiquity were more forthcoming about their sources, but plagiarism standards in the past were very different than they are today.

If I seem like a proponent of more university education for astrologers, these are some of the reasons why. Nevermind the specifics. Let's look at the bigger contexts of knowledge creation and transmission.

[JUPITERASC]

Just to correct anyone who thinks academic arguments are unassailable. I have a point of view with which many agree and many disagree. My point of view is:
IMO there is a crucial difference between Ptolemy and Valens: i.e. (in the words of well known prestigious academic Professor Mark T Riley), "Vettius Valens' Anthologiae is the longest extant astrological work from antiquity.It is unique in several respects: the author was a practicing astrologer; the work includes more than 100 authentic horoscopes of Valens' clients or associates, including his own, which is used as an example many times throughout the work.

Ptolemy did not only compile, in fact, while Ptolemy 'compiled', Ptolemy altered techniques according to personal prejudice/whim: and Ptolemy, mathematician/astronomer and not a practicing astrologer had a different rationale/perspective to that of Valens.

Ptolemy built on the work of Apollonius of Perga who (approximately four centuries earlier than Ptolemy) developed a form of geometric particular methods within the geometrical practice, that are to do with circular motion - as well as motions of circles moving on circles and so on - that Ptolemy then applied to discovering the much sought-after geometrical rationale thought to be underlying appearances Thus Ptolemy described a rationale that 'explained' retrograde motion - but incorrectly - (because the planets do not move with uniform circular motion in circles link to webpage illustrating Ptolemy's incorrect, yet mathematically appealing, idea of the universe http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html )

Valens perspective being that of a practicing astrologer meant that Valens was eager to preserve everything he possibly could intact for the benefit of future astrologers. Valens simply compiled without altering what he compiled.

Certainly Valens commented on the various astrological techniques but crucially, did not alter any. That fact taken in tandem with Valen's work being 'the longest extant astrological work from antiquity' understandably obviously makes Valens an important figure. Crucially, Valens utilised not only his own horoscope but also those of more than a 100 authentic horoscopes of his own clients.

Ptolemy doesn't talk very much about people of his own time, instead he talks about observations made centuries earlier by Hipparchus, another great astronomer - Observations used by Ptolemy are largely Babylonian via Hipparchus

And it was Hipparchus who, a century after Apollonius, began applying the Apollonian geometry in the first attempt to describe the movements of the heavenly spheres geometrically.

Hipparchus took the first steps in attempting to make the Apollonian geometry fit the appearances of the heavens - particularly in relation to the moon and the sun - by developing those moving circles as a technique for dealing with the confusing appearances of the heavens

Ptolemy then expanded on the original ideas of both his predecessors, Apollonius and Hipparchus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Perga

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=337188

Albert Timashev while writing an article entitled "Reconstruction of The Major Egyptian Years" has this to say of Ptolemy:

"Today it is well known that Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy was not a representative of a traditional Greek astrological school and, most likely, he was never a practicing astrologer at all. Ptolemy's work Tetrabiblos reflects his personal and sometimes disputable opinions on many questions." http://www.astrologer.ru/article/mey.html.en

Unlike Ptolemy, Valens was a practicing astrologer who provided evidence of well over a hundred of his own clients horoscopes.

Ptolemy was a mathematical theorist.:smile:

[JUPITERASC]

Additionally, to quote Curtis Manwaring of the Lost Horoscope X-files

"Well over 90% of everything that was ever written on the subject is lost, so debating what Greek astrologers did is probably an exercise in futility.

It is important to realize that Valens is probably 300+ years removed from the founders he is fond of quoting
At this point though I have more faith in someone who knows Greek hashing out the texts than those who don't. That would be James Holden and Robert Schmidt":smile:

[JUPITERASC]

Someone quoted Holden's book and I am having a look now and then. What do you mean there, JupiterASC?

The book: http://books.google.es/books/about/A_history_of_horoscopic_astrology.html?id=9p1igGF3 gpUC&redir_esc=y
Hello Haizea, that was Curtis Manwaring who said Holden is trustworthy along with Schmidt - is that your question? Btw tell me why you like Manilius especially :smile:

[JUPITERASC]

But I still don't know what it is that he says that you can trust (in contrast to what others say?).[Edit: Oh sorry, I got it now: you don't trust him; Manwaring does.]

My hero is Manilius because he is an old example of an astrologer, one who is different, does whatever he wants....and writes a poem about it! It seems he has had to wait thousands of years to be admired. Well, I admire him. :kissing:
Curtis Manwaring writes the software for Robert Schmidt at Project Hindsight and has been involved with the revival of Hellenistic astrology since approximately fifteen-plus years ago http://www.astrology-x-files.com/

Robert Schmidt, Robert Zoller and Robert Hand are all Classics scholars. Robert Zoller http://www.new-library.com/ is a Latin scholar and graduate, Bachelor of Arts (BA) in medieval studies from the Institute for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at City College New York. He is a leading Astrologer and practitioner of occult philosophy. Many of his translations and other works are now seminal works on Astrology and the related Arts. His Tools and Techniques is a main text used by Predictive Astrologers. He is the principal of the Academy of Medieval and Predictive Astrology and offers some of the most advanced and well-presented courses on these subjects.

Robert Schmidt is a Classics scholar proficient in ancient Greek and Robert Hand is a Latin scholar also.

The three Roberts got together, formed Project Hindsight http://www.projecthindsight.com/geninfo/about.html and began translating ancient texts from the Hellenistic period into English. Two of the Roberts dropped out - Robert Hand is currently a very successful astrologer and Robert Zoller is acknowledged as one of the greatest living masters of Traditional astrological techniques. Robert Schmidt continued working on Project Hindsight :smile:

Curtis Manwaring is saying that he trusts Robert Schmidt because Robert Schmidt translates from the original Greek, but others criticisinf Robert Schmidt have not even read the works they are criticising (in any language)

[waybread]

JupiterAsc, I recommend that you reflect upon your "point of view" in light of the considerable evidence to the contrary. This really is the issue, not some kind of applause-o-meter.

Who says the academic point of view is unassailable? Not me, as per my previous response to sandstone. But I think views that are demonstrably incorrect or so out-of-context as to confuse matters are assailable.

Speaking of academic views, James Holden worked for most of his life as a telephone engineer. He studied Latin in high school and in college, and got his MA degree in English literature with a thesis on Lilly. He taught himself ancient Greek. (When I have a moment, I can look up my source for this information, upon request.) I put some faith on the older generations of academics (like Neugebauer, who trained as a mathematician) because oftentimes they had to learn Latin and Greek as students in order to get their degrees.

I tend to agree with Manwaring (aka "zoidsoft") about the problems of saying much of anything definitively on Hellenistic astrology. But historians and classical studies scholars today proceed with far more caution than the average astrologer-blogger.

And with all due respect to someone with a BA, this is the first step towards a research career. Not a qualification. But it beats some very self-assured astrologers who settled for a high school diploma, and maybe some additional college/university-level classes.

Robert Hand and the others, to the extent that we could call them "classics scholars" (which I don't accept) appear to be self-taught. From what I gather, Robert Hand got a BA (or BS) many years ago at Brandeis University, and is only now pursuing a Ph. D. in medieval studies. Some people can do very well learning new material independently, but most of them make mistakes in writing history that you wouldn't find most academics making, because the latter group have had too much informed critical feedback during their careers.

Robert Schmidt would be such an example of someone who commits methodological oversights. I don't mind saying why when I have a moment, if this topic interests anybody.

Haizea, Manilius comes from an older Greek and Roman tradition of star-lore and writing about the heavens, where he describes the constellations in the context of Graeco-Roman mythology. As an independent source, he has a lot to offer in terms of understanding the diversity of ancient traditions. You might also enjoy reading Aratus, Phaenomena.

[sandstone]

it would seem to me one will take from these authors and those who translate there work for us, all that one can in any beneficial manner.. no one has to pick either valens or ptolemy for example.. to waste so much time - it is how i see it - getting caught up in what i consider very peripheral concerns about either authors work seems foolish..

after reading the link "A Survey of Vettius Valens (http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/PDF_folder/VettiusValens.PDF)" i come away with the sense that valens primary concern was the length of life (chronocrators) and critical time periods in a persons life.. how many astrologers are looking for the length of life when looking at an astrology chart today?

i would like to quote a passage from the above link page 36 that i found similar to some comments here at this forum expressed by dr. farr and myself.. - valens prided himself on his eclecticism: " every method when combined and critically compared with every other, brings forth the scientific precise system."
that is an interesting overview!!! i wonder how that would go over today with fellow astrologers?

i think it is best to take everything that is written a long time ago, and subject to translation and everything else that can happen over the course of eons of time WITH A GRAIN OF SALT..............

jup asc - do you try these methods valens suggests, or is it another case of "it has to be either valens or ptolemy but it can't be both" type of thinking which seems to be the basis for you attitude about modern verses traditional too? you seem very keen to dismiss ptolemy on a regular basis, so i ask these questions.. the irony to this for me is after having read joseph cranes book who has read all of the works of valens and ptolemy the high regard that crane has for ptolemy!!! this is from someone who is considered a knowledgeable source on hellenistic astrology..

[sandstone]

perhaps a link from robert schmidt himself pointing out a key difference between valens and ptolemy might be cause for pause jupiter asc..
http://www.projecthindsight.com/articles/astronomy.html

[waybread]

I agree, sandstone. No doubt as we read further into past astrologies, we will find authors who appeal to us and some who don't. But this isn't a sound basis for understanding what these men wrote and how it fit into their time and place.

BTW, the biographical info on James H. Holden is from an interview with him at http://gryphonastrology.com/blog/2008/09/ He also mentioned that he isn't a practicing astrologer.

Would that discredit what he writes, JupiterAsc?

Thanks for the tip on Robert Schmidt, Dr. Farr. According to Noel Tyl's website, www.noeltyl.com/techniques/051230.html (http://www.noeltyl.com/techniques/051230.html) Robert H. Schmidt "was educated at" St. Johns College in Maryland. Sometimes "was educated at" means the individual completed a degree there, sometimes not; but a site called Lead411 says he obtained "a degree" there. I checked the St. Johns website. It appears to be an alternative, though accredited college, but their website is not organized according to traditional subjects and departments, which didn't make it easy to determine how much Greek one could learn there (today.) It might have been rigorous. According to Wikipedia, St. Johns students today study ancient Greek during their first two years. I don't know how much material that involves.

[JUPITERASC]

it would seem to me one will take from these authors and those who translate there work for us, all that one can in any beneficial manner.. no one has to pick either valens or ptolemy for example.. to waste so much time - it is how i see it - getting caught up in what i consider very peripheral concerns about either authors work seems foolish.. I would entirely concur sandstone - as would Curtis Manwaring who commented:

"Well over 90% of everything that was ever written on the subject is lost, so debating what Greek astrologers did is probably an exercise in futility.

It is important to realize that Valens is probably 300+ years removed from the founders he is fond of quoting
At this point though I have more faith in someone who knows Greek hashing out the texts than those who don't. That would be James Holden and Robert Schmidt"

after reading the link "A Survey of Vettius Valens (http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/PDF_folder/VettiusValens.PDF)" i come away with the sense that valens primary concern was the length of life (chronocrators) and critical time periods in a persons life.. how many astrologers are looking for the length of life when looking at an astrology chart today? Precisely! Well spotted dr. farr has repeatedly pointed this out frequently already

Today those concerns are not such a priority - however, for academics a good argument can always be discovered lurking somewhere in the midst of an ancient tome

Valens as well as the length of life concerns, also faithfully recorded, without alteration the techniques of astrological predecessors from 300+ years before his own birth. Read the whole of Valens and you'll find a treasure trove of astrological techniques. The translation by Mark T Riley has some merit - even though he himself remarks "you are on your own" refusing to take responsibility for any errors contained within it. Unsurprisingly, Schmidt's scholarly material would be more expensive to access :smile:
i would like to quote a passage from the above link page 36 that i found similar to some comments here at this forum expressed by dr. farr and myself.. - valens prided himself on his eclecticism: " every method when combined and critically compared with every other, brings forth the scientific precise system."
that is an interesting overview!!! i wonder how that would go over today with fellow astrologers?

i think it is best to take everything that is written a long time ago, and subject to translation and everything else that can happen over the course of eons of time WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.............. Say that to an academic :smile:

jup asc - do you try these methods valens suggests, or is it another case of "it has to be either valens or ptolemy but it can't be both" type of thinking which seems to be the basis for you attitude about modern verses traditional too? you seem very keen to dismiss ptolemy on a regular basis, so i ask these questions Of course.

Are you or waybread using these methods Valens suggests or is this simply, an academic argument for you plural?

...has waybread read the entirety of Vettius Valens pdf and thoroughly understood it? or even worked with any of the techniques?

Over on skyscript for example Chris Brennan remarked "The only thing I've seen from waybread in recent posts were lame attempts to deflect criticism by changing the subject when I pointed out that she was making sweeping assertions and generalizations about a field in which she has hardly read any of the primary source material. I'm not interested in continuing to engage someone who is approaching discussions with that type of modus operandi, nor am I obliged to"

Academics argue, someone writes another book and so the merry-go-round continues...

the irony to this for me is after having read joseph cranes book who has read all of the works of valens and ptolemy the high regard that crane has for ptolemy!!! this is from someone who is considered a knowledgeable source on hellenistic astrology..
[COLOR=Navy]That seems rather amusing sandstone - but considered knowledgeable by whom? In any event, it is best to practice the techniques.

Chris Brennan who has apparently committed the cardinal error of not having been awarded a degree, remarked to waybread on skyscript:"I have no interest in trying to hold a discussion with you at this point. You make these sweeping assertions about the "hard evidence from primary sources" not supporting some argument when it comes to Hellenistic astrology, but all that you have read is one or two primary sources on the subject - Ptolemy and Manilius. How do you know what the primary sources say if you haven't read them?

Although you are aware that you haven't read several texts yet, you don't have a clue how many other major primary sources you are missing at this point (over a dozen), yet you still feel comfortable making these sweeping claims about the entire history of Hellenistic astrology for some reason. I don't really understand why you are doing this exactly, but it comes off as really absurd and intellectually dishonest."

I would really appreciate it if you took more time to develop a greater familiarity with the primary source material under discussion before making arguments about the history of ancient astrology"

Would you like to clarify for us then sandstone, what is the key difference between Ptolemy and Valens as perceived by Robert Schmidt? :smile:

[deleted attacking and off-topic remarks - Moderator]

[waybread]

JupiterAsc, I've reported your above post to the moderators as an attacking post.

But assuming it stands in whole or part, I hope you will understand that my continued effort in responding to your posts has been to get you to think critically about what you write. If you wish to write something "factual" then let's discuss the facts.

Apparently you have an anti-academic view of knowledge. While that might be regretable, it really isn't the issue.

As I've said repeatedly, if people want to do sidereal, whole signs, or Donald Duck astrology, that's fine with me. My concern is with accuracy. As it is yours, on occasion.

BTW, the thought that my posts got trimmed at Skyscript ignores that several other people's posts got deleted. Chris Brennan attended Kepler College (which lost its accreditation) but apparently did not complete a degree there. This apparently is the sum total of his formal higher education.

Chris Brennan's charges about my reading were simply incorrect. His reactivation was out of line. I said so, by way of pointing out his strategy to discredit what I posted. Moreover I continue to read both primary and secondary sources.

JupiterAsc, have you read Valens and Ptolemy cover-to-cover?

Surely in university you learned the strategies for speed-reading large quantities of material that most students follow.

[JUPITERASC]

waybread who is attacking whom - sandstone asked questions, I answered those questions honestly

On the contrary astrologers delineate using techniques - are you familiar with the practical use of the techniques of Valens?

Chris Brennan reads, writes and translates Ancient Greek

Also may I respectfully remind you that this is not a university but an online astrological forum. Having said that, I find it more than understandable that, as a retired academic you are accustomed to 'correcting' what you perceive as 'errors' and the intentions of my posts in response to your comments have always been to draw to your attention that the world of a university is a closed world. Articles are peer reviewed. Few are read by the general public. At a university, only academic qualifications and status are the determinants.

What I have been telling you all along, in my own way, is that this is an astrological forum where academia has an opportunity to prove itself by tackling astrological delineation with varied techniques. Academic arguments about how many life-size planets can orbit the end of a pin without colliding have little if any relevance. The idea is to get some life-size planets, find a 'pin' and check out the theory :smile:


[deleted attacking remarks - Moderator]

[Rebel Uranian]

i think it is best to take everything that is written a long time ago, and subject to translation and everything else that can happen over the course of eons of time WITH A GRAIN OF SALT..............


By "with a grain of salt" do you mean it as the Romans meant it or as someone somewhere later along meant it?

[sandstone]

jupiter asc, i appreciate the response.. you're right, i am unaware of the history having been here only since mid november.. i don't want to pick sides here either.. in this short amount of time i have observed what i would describe is a hounding of waybread on your part and your response to my questions remained true to this, which was an unfortunate byproduct of my request.. i was aware of the skyscript thread with the quotes from chris b and you might remember i was the one who challenged chris on his derogatory attitude and unnecessary dismissal of waybread.. i could tell you more, but i will leave it at that.. i do think you are being unfair in always bringing up waybread, or what others said of waybread and i find your approach here often counter productive to the conversation, in spite of what seems like an honest intent on your part to be helpful. i wish we could just talk astrology, and i notice that the personal attacks really destabilize our ability to do this.. perhaps you feel that waybread is attacking you, or your attachment to an approach to astrology, but i have read nothing from waybread that seems anywhere near as hostile as the type of data in your last post which really didn't have to involve them..

perhaps you see it differently. i would really like to talk astrology with you, as opposed to this, but again i find myself in agreement with waybreads comments right after yours where he is openly saying he has reported your post for the what is in the content..

now to the comments in your post i would like to comment on.. you state "Valens as well as the length of life concerns, also faithfully recorded, without alteration the techniques of astrological predecessors from 300+ years before his own birth." but i note that he seems to have altered techniques if you re-read what i posted from the link you provided from riley - specifically - " every method when combined and critically compared with every other, brings forth the scientific precise system." to me combining methods is an alteration of a method.. perhaps you interpret this differently..

i am sorry that the history you have had here at this forum has been challenging, and that if you mentioned trad astrology, or removing the outer 3, or using sidereal was met with hostility.. i don't believe i've expressed a negative attitude towards these alternative approaches to astrology at any time either, but i haven't been here as long as dr. farr for example.. i would really like to read more trad astro, or sidereal astro without the outer 3 interpretations on charts from yourself.. that would be quite interesting if you felt inclined to share some of your observations.. i encourage you to do this as spending time doing these back and forths with waybread are probably a good reason dr. farr and others including myself lose interest in following them.. far better would it be to my mind to share in your enthusiasm for an approach you like, then in your hostility towards those people or approaches you don't like! but again, this is just how i see it and you will no doubt see it differently.. cheers james

[sandstone]

rebel u - i am unaware of how the romans used the saying!

[Rebel Uranian]

@sandstone According to my Latin teacher (but not Wikipedia, but you can guess who's certified and who isn't) it meant "take it [something] seriously" because back then salt was scarce. It's debatable - just like Valens and all this other stuff from thousands of years ago.

[JUPITERASC]

Everyone has their own point of view :smile:

[sandstone]

jup asc - good for you in what you say here! that is all positive.. as both you and rebel u would like to discuss trad astro more, i think all you have to do is do it.. one can start a thread on a topic of interest and hopefully others will join in.. i have to admit i have only so much time to devote to reading these forums, but i enjoy the interaction with everyone here and feel i benefit from everyone too..

what i would really like to see is application of the different methods demonstrated in a direct manner.. for example a few other forums on the net have been discussing the death of the north korean leader this past weekend and have been looking at a few interesting charts connected to this.. marjorie orr - who i post at under the name james observed how obamas relocated midheaven for pjongjang has pluto on the midheaven which is the same placement for gwbushs relocated chart to kabul.. observations like this interest me, but i have mentioned here i am a fan of relocation astrology..

perhaps it is difficult to learn without other people like bob zemco around to really help the process along by commenting.. i can understand that too.. the other option is to spend a lot of time reading the forum at skyscript as they have a real focus on trad astro on that site that one could definitely learn from if they were interested.. maybe you will see something that will motivate you to want to ask some questions on what you see too.. for me asking questions is a good sign, as i find i continue to do this in my astro studies all the time.. i think that is really what many of these threads are about, whether consciously or not.. people want to understand how others see something better, or want to share there perspective with the hope that others will want to offer how they might see it differently.. everyone can learn in that environment..

rebel u - thanks for the info.. it is connected in a roundabout way - grain of salt - but different..to me it implies pay close attention as you don't want to lose any...

[sandstone]

the problem as i see it jup a is there are too many young folks sincerely interested in astrology and not enough folks who have spent more time at it on the board and willing to share.. that to me is the dilemma.. i like your idea of looking at the charts of ordinary people.. ordinary people don't generally lead polarized or extreme types of lives that help to make astro observations easier then harder to see... astrologers will often focus on people like world leaders, or famous people because there is a lot more data available on them including important events in their life such as when they became president and etc that one can use to try out the different predictive tools that one is working at learning how to use.. i think this is why that happens.. i would try being a member on skyscript if you aren't already and pick your spots to ask questions, or try starting threads here hoping that you engage someone who might know more and want to participate.. it is all i can think of for now and... i have to go do some other stuff as i have found my time is being eaten up here a wee bit too much! cheers james

[waybread]

I see a lot of interest in this forum in traditional astrology! I think any "attacks" on it have been pretty moderate, given how foreign the Hellenistic astrologers' mentality is to how most of us construe human beings today.

sandstone, thanks for your support. Though I have to say the issue isn't so much who "votes" for whom (nor who "gangs up" on whom) but rather, if we look at what those old astrologers wrote, what do they really tell us?

I mean, that Chris Brennan flap at Skyscript was just silly. I refused to play his game of matching my reading list against his, and he tried to punish me for daring to question his belief in a Hellenistic "tradition" insofar as houses are concerned. A bunch of that thread got deleted by the moderator, and I was really pleased to get some endorsement via PM by two published traditional astrologers whose work I really respect.

I do think that JupiterAscendant's constant "tracking" of me, while refusing to engage in the substance of my statements, is obsessive.

Anyway, folks. Maybe it's time for some detox.

[JUPITERASC]

I'm not seeking answers to astrological questions sandstone - occasionally I may ask a question but mostly I respond to anyone seeking information on astrology: I respond with sincere answers, assisting to the best of my ability in my own way, no one is perfect: we all have access to plenty of astrological information online and when anyone posts who is clearly unaware of the existence of such information that is very likely to be of use to them, then - in common with others on this forum I post links to it. That's my contribution to the forum. No one is paid and no one expects payment. We do this because we like to be helpful in our own way.

[dr. farr]

One comment: Valens was only one of the Hellenistic era authors; Maternus book is almost as lengthy as Valens "Anthology", and actually (except for Valens katarchic indications) I prefer Maternus to Valens; and I prefer Paulus Alexandrianus (358 AD) to all of them: from Paulus I have taken the monomoiria (in preference to the predominat Egyptian terms of the Hellenists), Pauline profection (in preference to the dominant Egyptian profection method) and Pauline dodekatemorion (in preference to the predominant dodek by the factor of 12 used by all other Hellenist authors) For me Paulus is the "tops" among the Greco/Roman authors. I have taken certain things from others, of course: the Manilius Decans (and the emphasis upon duodenaries) from Manilius, the Bright Degree concept from Antiochus of Athens (and developed as Bright Degree Activations by Maximus), also I have taken from Maximus his modifications of the inceptional (katarchic) astrology of Valens; but I must say that I consider Paulus Alexandrianus the "tops" among the Greco/Roman authors which we have avalable to us today.

I'd also like to point out that Vedic astrology is VERY similar to Hellenistic astrology, including in its techniques and in its rather dramatic "meanings" given to certain sign (rashi) and planetary combinations (yogas) Just make a study of the early jyotish classics (now available in English) by Parasara, Brighu, Jaimini, Saravali, Vahamirhara, Garga, and you will quickly see what I mean. About the only thing missing in classical Vedic from the Hellenists, is the doctrine of sect, and the use of dodekatemorion; otherwise the similarities are very striking.

[wilsontc]

All,

Please get back on subject. If you want to recommend a new forum area or discuss Moderating style, suggest or discuss on the "Help with the Forum and Suggestions..." forum. If you want to complain about a particular person, PM the Moderator team about a specific complaint. Focus on the issue you are discussing and NOT on the person who is discussing it. I will continue to delete off-topic and/or attacking remarks.

Back on subject,

Tim

[Caprising]

I hope that you are going to continue Waybread, this has been a really interesting thread!

[waybread]

.....
I'm not seeking answers to astrological questions sandstone - occasionally I may ask a question but mostly I respond to anyone seeking information on astrology: I respond with sincere answers, assisting to the best of my ability in my own way, no one is perfect: we all have access to plenty of astrological information online and when anyone posts who is clearly unaware of the existence of such information that is very likely to be of use to them, then - in common with others on this forum I post links to it. That's my contribution to the forum....

JupiterAsc, I think all of us have to be on a life-long learning trajectory. So much astrology, so little time. I've been studying astrology for over 20 years, and there is still so much to learn. I taught (another subject) for over 30 years, and every professional teacher knows how much we learn from our students and colleagues. So even though you may not be "seeking answers," staying open to new or more compelling information as an "accidental" learner is so important. Particularly in astrology, with so much poorly informed material out there, I think we also have to be connoisseurs of what we read.

Thank you, Caprising! No worries on that score.

Dr. Farr, I don't have the sources on Hindu astrology that you mention, but I do have William Levacy's primer Beneath a Vedic Sky, and he cites some of them in his bibliography. The more I get into early Hellenistic astrology, the more variety I see in thematic house contents, but it is interesting that Levacy gives some of the house names and meanings as similar to some of the Hellenistic ones that have since disappeared.

Levacy gives the 3rd house as the house of brothers. The third house as the house of the goddess (Thea) and "the joy of the moon" also appears in ancient western astrology, but Levacy gives the 4th house to mothers and the moon. Valens has got both meanings for the third house in his Anthologies. In II:13 or 14 it is "the place of the goddess moon." On the other hand, in book IV: 12, the third refers to "brothers, travel abroad, kingship, authority, friends, relatives, rents/revenue, slaves"! This is one reason why Valens seems to have been quite a compiler. Today an anthology means a collection of previously published work!

"The house of brothers" for the 3rd house appears alone in Otto Neugebauer's 1943 article "Demotic Horoscopes," which is based upon archaeological finds from the first half of the 1st century AD.

Levacy does give a more positive interpretation of the 12th house than I've found so far in traditional western astrology, but here I suspect the Hindu idea of spiritual refinement through self-denial comes in here.

Ptolemy seems to avoid using houses if he can. He mentions only a few of them by name, and only the above-ground ones. He typically uses non-house-related techniques to analyse a lot of topics for which I would normally turn to one house or another. I think this is because he couldn't easily fit them into his scientific framework.

[sandstone]

jupiter asc - i would like to 2nd what waybread said to you up above.. learning is a life long process that all of us are involved in.. i have been involved with astrology primarily as a student for over 35 years.. i have observed and read a lot, but i remain open to the many approaches one can take with astrology. of course i have my preferences, as we all do, but i don't think i have the only right way - far from it.. thanks for sharing and being involved.. no one including you needs to justify there presence here, regardless of there level of involvement..

waybread, i would like to 2nd haizeas comments to you as well.. i like the fact you are trying to articulate what you are finding.. i think it is helpful.. i don't get caught up in history behind the different house meanings and etc. so much as i am interested in how they were arrived at.. my conclusion is much of astrology is based on observation which i can apply myself as well.. i think this is what needs to be emphasized when reading literature or trying to intuit what the ancients were up to with the various ideas or approaches they worked and identified with.. without a connection based on our observations, none of it means anything..

this is where it gets interesting, as i always wonder if i or others have come to incomplete conclusions regarding what we observe and i think this is the case!! if we want to continue to learn we have to be constantly open to trying different approaches to see if we could have gotten a better understanding thru their use.. i suppose this is why i encourage other approaches here.. i don't think anyone can say definitively they know the best way to do astrology and it is the only way!

[waybread]

Thanks to you both!

Aratus was a pre-horoscopic astrology writer with a beautiful poem about the constellations and their use in weather-lore.

Sandstone, I agree with you. Hence the quote at the end of my posts!

[JUPITERASC]

"We know that Ptolemy, for example, seems to have been a theoretician rather than a 'working-class' astrologer. For Dorotheus, Firmicus and Hephaistio, we don't have much information. But it is commonly known that Valens was indeed a 'working-class astrologer' often prefacing statements with phrases like:


"I wandered throughout Egypt in search of knowledge until someone taught me this technique, and I have found it to work beautifully."

"I have found this lot to be very mystical and important."


Valens speaks from his own personal experience as a working astrologer which makes me want to trust him" :smile:



The foregoing 98 words are sourced from Kenneth Johnson - an astrologer with at least forty years experience

[greybeard]

Hmm..."eclectic utilitiarian" -- sounds like some 19th century New England religion. It suits me...what I am interested in is finding the methods that give the best and most useful results in horoscope delineation.

Regarding use of charts for people prior to my own times, I often use such folks for in-depth studies, and would consider Valens' use of them as valid if he were not just copying and repeating what he found in earlier sources.

I happen to agree with Morinus that the astrological symbolism should derive from astrological fact. To depend on mythology, numerology and other non-astronomical foundations for significance is a bit dangerous, although it can be illuminating and fruitful.

It is very difficult for the modern mind to fully grasp the meanings and undercurrents of the ancient, and culturally different, mythologies.

I have had the good fortune to live in and assimilate a culture foreign to my own. I speak a foreign language fluently. These experiences have taught me that you must be of a different culture to understand the mind produced by that culture. My mind is American, and can only paritally penetrate, partially understand the mind of an African, or any other culture, especially when it is removed from my native culture not only by the cultural patterns and language, but by time itself. To understand ancient Greek or Egyptian mythology from our modern standpoint is something like shouting across a river to someone on the other side.

[JUPITERASC]

Hmm..."eclectic utilitiarian" -- sounds like some 19th century New England religion. It suits me...what I am interested in is finding the methods that give the best and most useful results in horoscope delineation.

Regarding use of charts for people prior to my own times, I often use such folks for in-depth studies, and would consider Valens' use of them as valid if he were not just copying and repeating what he found in earlier sources
The reason Vettius Valens work "The Anthology" is of such great importance is because not only did Valens NOT 'copy and repeat' but also Valens CHRONICLED faithfully the work of his astrological predecessors WITHOUT ALTERATION and WITHOUT IMPOSING his opinions on the ideas of ancient predecessors.

Valens, having faithfully chronicled details of techniques which, without Valens chronicling of them, would have been consigned to oblivion

THEN tested the techniques for himself BECAUSE VALENS WAS A WORKING PRACTICING ASTROLOGER

Valens work is not only a valuable chronicle of ancient astrological techniques but also an interesting insight regarding Valens own personal testing of those techniques

SO Valens chronicled AS WELL AS tested techniques which in his time were already considered 'Ancient' and in doing so provides more than a hundred example horoscopes for astrologers following him to glean information from.

Furthermore, Valens work is proven reliable in historical terms because Valens horoscopes have been useful in enabling scholars to date many historical events with more certainty :smile:
It is very difficult for the modern mind to fully grasp the meanings and undercurrents of the ancient, and culturally different, mythologies.

I have had the good fortune to live in and assimilate a culture foreign to my own. I speak a foreign language fluently. These experiences have taught me that you must be of a different culture to understand the mind produced by that culture. My mind is American, and can only paritally penetrate, partially understand the mind of an African, or any other culture, especially when it is removed from my native culture not only by the cultural patterns and language, but by time itself. To understand ancient Greek or Egyptian mythology from our modern standpoint is something like shouting across a river to someone on the other side.

[greybeard]

Very nice contribution Jup. Thanks.

You know, you seldom write. Mostly you post links. You should write more.

[I cee]

The reason Vettius Valens work "The Anthology" is of such great importance is because not only did Valens NOT 'copy and repeat' but also Valens CHRONICLED faithfully the work of his astrological predecessors WITHOUT ALTERATION and WITHOUT IMPOSING his opinions on the ideas of ancient predecessors.

Valens, having faithfully chronicled details of techniques which, without Valens chronicling of them, would have been consigned to oblivion

THEN tested the techniques for himself BECAUSE VALENS WAS A WORKING PRACTICING ASTROLOGER

Valens work is not only a valuable chronicle of ancient astrological techniques but also an interesting insight regarding Valens own personal testing of those techniques

SO Valens chronicled AS WELL AS tested techniques which in his time were already considered 'Ancient' and in doing so provides more than a hundred example horoscopes for astrologers following him to glean information from.

Furthermore, Valens work is proven reliable in historical terms because Valens horoscopes have been useful in enabling scholars to date many historical events with more certainty :smile:

I agree with greybeard, very interesting peice
Who were valens predecessors?
Jus curious?
.....the Babylonians?

[JUPITERASC]

I agree with greybeard, very interesting peice
Who were valens predecessors?
Jus curious?
.....the Babylonians?
I cee, realistically it is obvious that evidence on this matter has been destroyed or awaits discovery. However, we have Vettius Valens "The Anthology" regarding which Robert Schmidt of Project Hindsight as well as others have commented on Valens mention of “Nechepso and Petosiris” as being ancient astrological authoritative sources :smile:

Deborah Houlding discussion on that theme at http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6552&sid=1cf7831739750642834f35160ed89814

QUOTE :

“….The name Nechepso(s) was formally believed to be unattested in Egyptian works but we now have seven Egyptian sources explicitly mentioning it.... one of which states that “the sage Petesis discovered a hidden papyrus containing an astrological treatise composed by ‘Imhotep the Great, the son of Ptah’ which Petesis presented to his king Nechepsos”

Ryholt discovered evidence in a papyrus discussing Petosiris and Nechepsos receiving instruction from Hermes and Asclepius where Asclepius is “explicitly identified with Imouthes son of Hephaistos, i.e., Imhotep, the son of Ptah … the same authority that allegedly composed the book found by Petesis.....”



Deborah Houlding also describes an article by Stephan Heilen linking ancient Egyptian astrological sources to the preserved Greek traditions

QUOTE :

“….Stephan Heilen discovered: “an obvious and most welcome link between the preserved Greek and Egyptian traditions. Hermes can hardly be any other than the deified Amenhotep son of Hapu”. Hence the two instructors of Nechepsos and Petosiris – Hermes and Asclepius – are now identified as Imhotep son of Ptah and Amenhotep son of Hapu.

This is obviously hugely important information on the history of our ancient sources”

[waybread]

JA, see my comments on that thread at Skyscript.

[JUPITERASC]

JA, see my comments on that thread at Skyscript.
I have not read your comments over on skyscript, I'm as usual multi-tasking with a busy schedule - to simplify for others who are likely to be interested as well, what did you say... is there a particular idea you have in mind? :smile:

[waybread]

You'll see that I and another poster caution against taking too literally an actual King Nechepso and scribe Petosiris, and some of the reasons why.

Just click on your link, and read further.

[JUPITERASC]

You'll see that I and another poster caution against taking too literally an actual King Nechepso and scribe Petosiris, and some of the reasons why.

Just click on your link, and read further.
No time currently, very busy - later perhaps - I have read other interesting threads/info on the same subject written over at skyscript by those well versed on this subject. It is most intriguing :smile:

[waybread]

No time currently, very busy - later perhaps - I have read other interesting threads/info on the same subject written over at skyscript by those well versed on this subject. It is most intriguing :smile:
Like me (smile).

[dr. farr]

Hermetic initiatic authors always used names of gods or kings, saints, etc, as their "cover" when writing-whether or not there ever was a nechepso or petosiris has nothing whatsoever to do with the hermetic tradition and the influence it had in molding the emergence of Hellenistic astrology; it seems pretty clear (now with so much original material having become available over the past 20 years) that Hellenistic astrology was a mixture, a syncretism, of 2 primary streams: one being the Babylonian stream and the other being the hermetic stream (the term "Egyptian" referring to the latter, which arose in the first 2 centuries BC during the Alexandrian enlightenment)
Valens seems to particularly represent the hermetic ("Egyptian") qualities of that syncretism.

[JUPITERASC]

Hermetic initiatic authors always used names of gods or kings, saints, etc, as their "cover" when writing-whether or not there ever was a nechepso or petosiris has nothing whatsoever to do with the hermetic tradition and the influence it had in molding the emergence of Hellenistic astrology; it seems pretty clear (now with so much original material having become available over the past 20 years) that Hellenistic astrology was a mixture, a syncretism, of 2 primary streams: one being the Babylonian stream and the other being the hermetic stream (the term "Egyptian" referring to the latter, which arose in the first 2 centuries BC during the Alexandrian enlightenment)
Valens seems to particularly represent the hermetic ("Egyptian") qualities of that syncretism.
Irrespective of the devices utilised by such authors dr. farr, nevertheless a clear connection to the Babylonian as well as the Egyptian streams is evident... that is the key factor... the obvious connection of astrology today via Hellenistic authors e.g. Vettius Valens to astrology thousands of years ago. i.e. Hellenistic astrology did not 'suddenly appear out of nowhere fully formed' :smile:

[dr. farr]

Right, it was a syncretism of prior Sumero/Babylonian and Egypto/hermetic initiatic streams.

[JUPITERASC]

Right, it was a syncretism of prior Sumero/Babylonian and Egypto/hermetic initiatic streams.
Syncretism? A new word for me and a most useful definition as I have just discovered from an online search. A wonderful description for this forum which may well be described as a forum with much syncretic content. I appreciate that dr. farr - thanks, I learn something every moment! :smile:

[I cee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVrNV_5LhNE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I couldn't find a 'walk like a Babyloian':tongue: