Petty clarifications
- Thread starter aleth3ia
- Start date
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Oddity
Well-known member
The Thema Mundi has always been presented as a pedagogical device. Same with the the Zoroastrian chart of the fall. Technically, they are both 'representative' charts, though I think 'philosophical' is a better word. And you can draw a lot from studying them.
I think you're oversimplifying things here.
Dirius
Well-known member
You are sort of miss-quoting people.
What is said is that Ptolomy wasn't a practicing astrologer. He was an astronomer mostly. Astrology is pretty much the theological companion to Astronomy for the ancients. Most of his work (is believed) to have been academic and theoretical. This is why he is usually quoted for theoretical basic concepts, but usually dismissed for applied techniques.
Also, what Ptolomy did was mostly interpret astrology on Aristotelian principles that had existed long before.
Valens is presumed to have been a working astrologer, that studied under different teachers/schools. His work is filled with charts, and most of his books cover practical methods with lots of examples.
Last edited:
Dirius
Well-known member
I'm not taking any sides. From the "venus out of sect" topic you mentioned. I said exactly the same thing JUP did because I completly agree with his statement in that other topic:
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=107878&page=4
Ptolemy was not a practicing astrologer
but a mathematician, astronomer and theorist
VETTIUS VALENS in contrast was a practicing astrologer
and details more than a one hundred charts of clients
in THE ANTHOLOGY translated from Ancient Greek by Professor Mark T Riley CSU
and available in FREE pdf form at
I believe you mistook JUP's opinion in his other post that is above this one. He talked about James Holden book there: is it possible he was quoting from the book?. And yes it is true that many of the things posted in Ptolomy's books were based on observations done by Hipparchus. But this does not relate to the entirety of what Ptolomy wrote. Furthermore, Ptolomy is noted as a compiler of information. I think the book's objective is to recorgnise Hipparchus as a more prominent figure, given Ptolomy tends to get the whole credit.
No one is saying otherwise. But it is fair to be objective about Ptolomy's work, and not over-indulge in praises. He did a lot of work for astrology. He is valued for his theoretical work, whether original or not. He is criticized for his applied techniques mostly.
For instance, many of the chapters from Valens Anthology are the work of other astrologers. In his book he cites many sources. To mention a one, he presents techniques of Critodemus in book III. This is common in the ancient world.
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Ptolemy was not a practicing astrologer
but a mathematician, astronomer and theorist
VETTIUS VALENS in contrast was a practicing astrologer
and details more than a one hundred charts of clients
in THE ANTHOLOGY translated from Ancient Greek by Professor Mark T Riley CSU
and available in FREE pdf form at http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius%20valens%20entire.pdf
Ptolemy theorised without practice
because
Ptolemy was not an astrologer
Ptolemy left no natal charts at all
In contrast
Valens discusses more than one hundred natal charts
to which Valens applies the techniques he practices
Dirius
Well-known member
I wouldn't personally call him a fraud. And I do think tetrabiblos is one of the most influential astrology books, and many of Ptolomy's theorems compose the basis of astrology.
I do sustain he was (in all probability) not a practicing astrologer, which is what I mentioned earlier. Perhaps I didn't make it clear, what I agree with is JUP's opinion regarding that specific fact, but not with James Holden's accusation of Ptolomy in his book.
Dirius
Well-known member
I have no idea what the book says.
I was just making the clarification when I said "I agree with JUP completly", that I was refering to what I myself said, that Ptolomy wasn't a practicing astrologer, but rather a theoretical researcher, and most of the criticism he gets is for applied theorems. You accused me of just being biased for a friend, and I simply showed you the post in which he said the same thing on other topic (
(Jup also said Ptolomy was a fraud, on another post)
Theology, which means (according to wiki): the critical study of the nature of the divine. Astronomers were not just concerned with stellar motion, but rather the interpretation of their message. (I misspelled in my original post)
That is what Astrology is, the interpretation of the divine message from the sky. Saying otherwise, is simply trying to search for a meaning that is not there.
I'm really not sure whats the intention of your post.
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
Last edited:
Dirius
Well-known member
By "elements", and the link you posted, I presume you mean triplicities.
The work of Valens is more related (in both style and practice) to that of Dorotheus of Sidon who is dated as earlier than Ptolomy. Both Valens and Dorotheus invest a lot of time into legth of life techniques, use the profection technique and employ the kleroi, some of them Ptolomy does mention but never goes into it much. Valens does not spend much time on concepts, as Ptolomy did.
Also Dorotheus uses the Triplicities (called "triangles") which is what you refer to as "elements", which suggest they were employed much earlier than Ptolomy.
The point you are trying to make simply shows that you haven't really read Valens or Ptolomy much.
Last edited:
I didn't mention triplicities, did I? But they're related, sure. The ideal of elements is the basis of western philosophy. It's in every book you'll read from those times, but how is that expressed? It's true, in astrological books it's present too, somehow, but it is very vaguely described, sometimes completely messed up. Dorotheus does not mentions elements and qualities. Ptolemy's the first who mentioned them, describing them, in detail somehow, but does not attribute them to the signs, nor in triplicity. Valens does. I just think he's been influenced. Well, right. I'm probably wrong. This thread was an error. Ptolemy was an astronomer.
Dirius
Well-known member
The topic wasn't and error, its quite interesting actually. But you should expect criticism on this particular section. You are expected to back your arguments in the light of traditional principles and ancient texts and you will be confronted with different opinions regarding those. The argument of "well because I like it" is not well recieved here. Welcome to the traditional section.
----------------**--------------------**--------------------
Its true Dorotheus does not mention the triplicities as belonging to a certain element. And I never said Ptolomy didn't influence astrologers that came after him. No one denies his contribution, and using aristotelian principles to interpret astrology, in fact I said that in my opening post:
But you are trying to portray Ptolomy as the inspiration behind Valens, when its clear he wasn't. The only relatable subject from Ptolomy to Valens comes in the first few chapters in book I of the Anthology. All the other volumes have little to do with Ptolomy.
As for the Dorotheus connection, one must note that Dorotheus style of writting is not particularly concerned with explaining the basic concepts, he doesn't spend much time explaining the Signs, the planets, etc. He directly jumps into chart analysis as early as book I. It is assumed that his books are meant to have the trained astrologer as his audience.
While it is true that Valens does dedicate time to basic concepts, this has more to do with Valens detailed style of writting. For example, he provides like 3 or 4 methods for finding the Ascendant and the Sun and Moon position, and gives lots of theorems to deal with the same subject. No other writter did this, not even Ptolomy.
Both Dorotheus and Valens dedicate time (whole books) to the legth of life analysis. Both heavily employ the kleroi of marriage, children, fortune, etc. Both rely on the profection technique and dedicate whole books to it. If you look at both authors, it is rather obvious that the knowledge they employ has a similar origin. Ptolomy focuses little on these theorems, and as I mentioned earlier in my posts, he is not considered to have been a practicing astrologer.
----------
Finally I don't really get what your problem is with Brennan's article. It is an interesting theory about the joy of the planets and its connection to the triplicities.
----------------**--------------------**--------------------
Its true Dorotheus does not mention the triplicities as belonging to a certain element. And I never said Ptolomy didn't influence astrologers that came after him. No one denies his contribution, and using aristotelian principles to interpret astrology, in fact I said that in my opening post:
But you are trying to portray Ptolomy as the inspiration behind Valens, when its clear he wasn't. The only relatable subject from Ptolomy to Valens comes in the first few chapters in book I of the Anthology. All the other volumes have little to do with Ptolomy.
As for the Dorotheus connection, one must note that Dorotheus style of writting is not particularly concerned with explaining the basic concepts, he doesn't spend much time explaining the Signs, the planets, etc. He directly jumps into chart analysis as early as book I. It is assumed that his books are meant to have the trained astrologer as his audience.
While it is true that Valens does dedicate time to basic concepts, this has more to do with Valens detailed style of writting. For example, he provides like 3 or 4 methods for finding the Ascendant and the Sun and Moon position, and gives lots of theorems to deal with the same subject. No other writter did this, not even Ptolomy.
Both Dorotheus and Valens dedicate time (whole books) to the legth of life analysis. Both heavily employ the kleroi of marriage, children, fortune, etc. Both rely on the profection technique and dedicate whole books to it. If you look at both authors, it is rather obvious that the knowledge they employ has a similar origin. Ptolomy focuses little on these theorems, and as I mentioned earlier in my posts, he is not considered to have been a practicing astrologer.
----------
Finally I don't really get what your problem is with Brennan's article. It is an interesting theory about the joy of the planets and its connection to the triplicities.
Last edited:
Yeah sorry Dirius, but I suddenly felt embarrassed. I've stumbled into something bigger than me with this thread. And yeah well, I doubt anyone will ever have a real "solution" of this elements matter, infact we can't probably get to check all the books from 2000, and older, years ago... it's a crazy work.
That article from Brennan is indeed a good one for the theories he makes up, for the joys of the planets. But it is even a didactic piece, and if you get to read it because you're looking for a knowledge of some things (as I did), you'll get twisted informations about other things. Such as the philosophical schools. Brennan tries to bring back the disposition of the four elements-angles-trigons, to a philosophy of those times that could have embraced a view of sort: to each element is only one quality. And he says that's what Stoics did. But most schools didn't have such a view. It is instead a very theological view. It appears in the Qabalah, but not in previous philosophy.
Basically, I think Brennan holds up his theory by twisting some things, that are kind of hard to be proved and checked, because he has to make his thesis look valid. And although it is a good thesis, I don't see the point of excusing it by making up dubious claims. But, again, that's just my 2 cents.
This is a book for Jup anyway: https://www.amazon.com/Astrology-World-I-Ptolemaic-Inheritance/dp/1934586390
That article from Brennan is indeed a good one for the theories he makes up, for the joys of the planets. But it is even a didactic piece, and if you get to read it because you're looking for a knowledge of some things (as I did), you'll get twisted informations about other things. Such as the philosophical schools. Brennan tries to bring back the disposition of the four elements-angles-trigons, to a philosophy of those times that could have embraced a view of sort: to each element is only one quality. And he says that's what Stoics did. But most schools didn't have such a view. It is instead a very theological view. It appears in the Qabalah, but not in previous philosophy.
Basically, I think Brennan holds up his theory by twisting some things, that are kind of hard to be proved and checked, because he has to make his thesis look valid. And although it is a good thesis, I don't see the point of excusing it by making up dubious claims. But, again, that's just my 2 cents.
This is a book for Jup anyway: https://www.amazon.com/Astrology-World-I-Ptolemaic-Inheritance/dp/1934586390
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Theorising astronomers
who plagiarize predecessors
without citing sources
may have their adherents
HOWEVER
THE ANTHOLOGY by Vettius Valens PRACTICING ASTROLOGER
is a practical read
for those who value Valens chronicling without altering
followed by practical examples
illustrated by charts from Valens own astrological practice
THE ANTHOLOGY translated from Ancient Greek by Professor Mark T Riley CSU
is available in FREE pdf form at http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/...s%20entire.pdf
crucial difference between Ptolemy and Valens is:
Ptolemy was a mathematician and theorist.
whereas in contrast
“.......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....”
Professor Mark T Riley CSU
Dirius
Well-known member
I apologise if I made u feel attacked, I wasn't trying to do that.
To be honest, I seem to have miss-understood your initial post regarding this subject. Now (I think) I do.
I suppose that what Brennan said about Valens as the "author" of adding the elemental theme into the triplicities is the first problem you had with the paper. Problem is, its hard to say which came first if Ptolomy of Valens, given Valen's work is also a compilation of previous works. The thing about the Anthology is that it contains percieved number of works from a different arrange of astrologers and thus makes it rather hard to date. Supposedly, Ptolomy came first, but we also can't be sure if his work is completly original or not.
You should point ou what is specifically brennan's words that you disagree with, the whole article is long.
Last edited:
Yeah I pretty much find the whole article to be full of fallacies. That's why I made the thread. If we trust such articles and get informed on them, no wonder there are so many misunderstandings.
Yes, I find the datings to be wrong, they're not really explanatory of the situation either. And they support a view, which Jup agrees with, and no wonder, he's an abituee of that site, that favours their own story. This because the entire philosophical backing up of the whole concept is a bit twisted, again, to support the view of Brennan about the true meaning of the joys. And that's his opinion, it doesn't make much sense to me, but maybe it would a bit more if he provided some more correct infos.
So yeah, from now on my black list of astrologers contains Brennan too. Robert Hand was in it already from the composites, glad to confirm him.
I'll check them 4 times if I'll ever happen to meet them again on my way. You never know..
The idea of the joy as source for the houses is really good though, unfortunately if you apply it, you'll see that the wheel won't follow the same elements disposition that he mentions... but the thesis is still good.
I made a petty error myself in the initial thread, the Thema Mundi can be applied, I got confused with the joys.
Yes, I find the datings to be wrong, they're not really explanatory of the situation either. And they support a view, which Jup agrees with, and no wonder, he's an abituee of that site, that favours their own story. This because the entire philosophical backing up of the whole concept is a bit twisted, again, to support the view of Brennan about the true meaning of the joys. And that's his opinion, it doesn't make much sense to me, but maybe it would a bit more if he provided some more correct infos.
So yeah, from now on my black list of astrologers contains Brennan too. Robert Hand was in it already from the composites, glad to confirm him.
I'll check them 4 times if I'll ever happen to meet them again on my way. You never know..
The idea of the joy as source for the houses is really good though, unfortunately if you apply it, you'll see that the wheel won't follow the same elements disposition that he mentions... but the thesis is still good.
I made a petty error myself in the initial thread, the Thema Mundi can be applied, I got confused with the joys.
Last edited:
JUPITERASC
Well-known member
Brennan is one of our members
if you have an issue with Brennans opinions
nothing prevents you from sending Brennan a pm
lol Jup, that would be quite amazing. Idk if he's the only one to think that the planetary joys are behind the meaning of the houses, but that doesn't seem too much crazy to think, because the meaning we can draw from the joys are about what we make of the houses now.
I've spent the last months questioning all that I knew about astrology, and it has nothing to do with this traditional astrology branch. Anyway, It's been an enlightening work. Now I know that it doesn't really matter what kind of methods one applies, there's more insight in what we can actually make of the chart, than in the chart itself. I don't mean this to belittle the entire astrological practice. I really believe in some of its forms, but I realize that I can't expect anyone to challenge their own views, if they work for them, because who am I to tell them not to follow them?
This is why I deleted my posts, I felt a bit nauseated by my own pettiness, so don't worry Dirius. : ) You've been helpful.
I can't expect anyone to follow logic and common sense, especially if the matter in question they consider "god-like", which is a very V.Valens view. Eheh..
I've spent the last months questioning all that I knew about astrology, and it has nothing to do with this traditional astrology branch. Anyway, It's been an enlightening work. Now I know that it doesn't really matter what kind of methods one applies, there's more insight in what we can actually make of the chart, than in the chart itself. I don't mean this to belittle the entire astrological practice. I really believe in some of its forms, but I realize that I can't expect anyone to challenge their own views, if they work for them, because who am I to tell them not to follow them?
This is why I deleted my posts, I felt a bit nauseated by my own pettiness, so don't worry Dirius. : ) You've been helpful.
I can't expect anyone to follow logic and common sense, especially if the matter in question they consider "god-like", which is a very V.Valens view. Eheh..