Problems with Vettius Valens... et al.

I've done some more thinking on this topic since my earlier posts. So far, here's where I'm at:

1. The Babylonians used signs but no houses. So far as I know, you really can't find anything resembling our house systems in their omen literature or astrology.

2. The Greeks initially had a lore of constellations and seasonal changes, which they used for astro-meteorology and scheduling agricultural activities. They probably got the concept of signs as pie-sectors of the heavens from the Babylonians. Their early star lore was not astrology and did not use houses.

3. The Egyptians had a religious belief system of the rising and setting sun, deceased pharaohs, and subsequently any soul passing through a series of stations guarded by gates and gods. Their religion was so old and so varied over time and space that there was no single unified narrative of the journey of the souls of the dead. However, given the relationship of the houses to the diurnal motion of the sun, it is suggestive if not conclusive to consider the Egyptians as originators of the astrological houses. Deborah Houlding, Houses: Temples of the Sky also takes this view.

The Egyptian calendar relied heavily on the rising of asterisms. These subsequently were modified as astrological decans.

It is interesting that Valens and Firmicus Maternus give a lot of credit to esoteric Egyptian lore, notably the figures of the scribe Petosiris and King Nechepso. Even if their works were pseudopigraphical, the astrologers generically point to an Egyptian religious origin for much of their craft.

I still have a lot to learn about ancient Egyptian religion, but I can suggest some of my "findings" and correspondences between Egyptian lore and the content of houses. For example, I think the 8th became the house of death because in the diurnal method of time-keeping it corresponded to the blazing heat of late afternoon, and was associated with the death-dealing scorpion goddess. (Think about the Egyptian climate in summer! Not a good time to be in the scorching sun.)

4. Probably someone or a group of someones in and around Hellenized Alexandria Egypt began to "connect the dots" of using both signs and houses.

I don't think it is accurate to say that signs and houses were identical back-when. If I'm right, they had different historical-cultural origins. However, we do see some overlaps. The third "house of brothers" could correspond to Gemini, the twins, for example.

More later....

I too largely believe in the systemization of Hellenist astrology in pre CE Alexandria, and that this systemization devloped as a synthesis of neo-Platonic/neo-Pythagorean concepts with the remnants still extant at the time (c200-300 BC) of the Egyptian religio-philosophical tradition, combined with Greek astronomical considerations (these astronomical considerations as largely "codified" through Hipparchus of Alexandria during the 2nd century BC) However, I do believe that the earliest approaches equated signs and houses (these latter considered as PLACES rather than "structures", so to speak), because I also find this exact correspondence (signs = houses) in the earliest (pre-Parasara) Vedic tradition exemplfied in Jaimini astrology (it is interesting to note in Manilius, that his system of decans is found nowhere in later Hellenist astrology; yet Jaimini has the exact same system of decans which Manilius has! Note too that mainstream Parasara Vedic astrology has a different decan system, based on elements, which differs from the post-Manilius Hellenist decanate system) Of course Waybread and I have a different outlook regarding the history of this particular subject (signs/houses), which we have discussed (rather extensively) on a previous thread. However, as I have mentioned above, I largely agree with Waybread's "take" on the early historical development of Hellenist astrological thought and practice...

waybread said:

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.

Click to expand...

PTOLEMYS WRONG THEORY OF RETROGRADATION

waybread said:

It is interesting that Valens and Firmicus Maternus give a lot of credit to esoteric Egyptian lore, notably the figures of the scribe Petosiris and King Nechepso. Even if their works were pseudopigraphical, the astrologers generically point to an Egyptian religious origin for much of their craft.

Click to expand...

Alexandria in Egypt became the center of astrological scholarship in the ancient world. Ptolemy lived there and Valens established an academy.

What is the problem with Valens, op? Are you implying that Valens is overrated and mediocre? He says he secured a lot of money for himself and his student with astrology. Also had a school, many students, traveled a lot.

Yes, he was from the third generation of astrologers and never influential as Nechepso-Petosiris, Hermes, Asclepius, Critodemus etc, but he is among the most ''successful'' I know. He definitely had a lot of clients if he made money with this, so I am not sure what are you suggesting with him using old case files.

It is obviously preferable to use and study the charts of dead people. Balbilus too uses length of life on dead people in two surviving charts. That is how you test all your astrological theorems.

petosiris said:

What is the problem with Valens, op? Are you implying that Valens is overrated and mediocre? He says he secured a lot of money for himself and his student with astrology. Also had a school, many students, traveled a lot.

Yes, he was from the third generation of astrologers and never influential as Nechepso-Petosiris, Hermes, Asclepius, Critodemus etc, but he is among the most ''successful'' I know. He definitely had a lot of clients if he made money with this, so I am not sure what are you suggesting with him using old case files.

It is obviously preferable to use and study the charts of dead people. Balbilus too uses length of life on dead people in two surviving charts. That is how you test all your astrological theorems.

Click to expand...

Are you speaking to me, Petosiris?

Not at all. There is such a thing as analysis, which looks at and balances both the positives and negatives of a given book.

BTW, are you familiar with what Valens said about the ancient astrologer Petosiris, who was one of his principal sources?

You are way too negative and do not take many statements of that book. If money and popularity are factors (not the best, but it is something) by which we judge astrological expertise, then Valens is most definitely a practicing astrologer, would you not agree?

Also using contemporary cases is not ideal when you have dozens of length of life techniques to showcase. It is obvious to not accept most things that Valens says, but I do not understand the ad hominem.

Yes, Valens believed Nechepso and Petosiris were real pharaoh and astrologer. Is that what you are asking?

waybread said:

I've done some more thinking on this topic since my earlier posts. So far, here's where I'm at:

1. The Babylonians used signs but no houses. So far as I know, you really can't find anything resembling our house systems in their omen literature or astrology.

2. The Greeks initially had a lore of constellations and seasonal changes, which they used for astro-meteorology and scheduling agricultural activities. They probably got the concept of signs as pie-sectors of the heavens from the Babylonians. Their early star lore was not astrology and did not use houses.

3. The Egyptians had a religious belief system of the rising and setting sun, deceased pharaohs, and subsequently any soul passing through a series of stations guarded by gates and gods. Their religion was so old and so varied over time and space that there was no single unified narrative of the journey of the souls of the dead. However, given the relationship of the houses to the diurnal motion of the sun, it is suggestive if not conclusive to consider the Egyptians as originators of the astrological houses. Deborah Houlding, Houses: Temples of the Sky also takes this view.

The Egyptian calendar relied heavily on the rising of asterisms. These subsequently were modified as astrological decans.

It is interesting that Valens and Firmicus Maternus give a lot of credit to esoteric Egyptian lore, notably the figures of the scribe Petosiris and King Nechepso. Even if their works were pseudopigraphical, the astrologers generically point to an Egyptian religious origin for much of their craft.

I still have a lot to learn about ancient Egyptian religion, but I can suggest some of my "findings" and correspondences between Egyptian lore and the content of houses. For example, I think the 8th became the house of death because in the diurnal method of time-keeping it corresponded to the blazing heat of late afternoon, and was associated with the death-dealing scorpion goddess. (Think about the Egyptian climate in summer! Not a good time to be in the scorching sun.)

4. Probably someone or a group of someones in and around Hellenized Alexandria Egypt began to "connect the dots" of using both signs and houses.

I don't think it is accurate to say that signs and houses were identical back-when. If I'm right, they had different historical-cultural origins. However, we do see some overlaps. The third "house of brothers" could correspond to Gemini, the twins, for example.

More later....

Click to expand...

Nechepso and Petosiris, Hermes and Asclepius had different views on the places.

Nechepso and Petosiris, these divine men exposited that the rising, culminating, setting and anti-culminating images are the most powerful. It is most natural for men to divide the world in four directions. The places that are after the directions are weak and inoperative - for they walk away from them and even when they rise, they are still not on the directions. The places before the four powers are still operative and good, because they move towards the directions, will rise soon and will be noticeable to everyone.

Hermes, however, exposited a different theory. He said that configurations to the Rising Place matter more than angularity. And he said that the 2nd, 6th, 8th, 12th and 3rd are inoperative places, for they are unconfigured to the Hour-Marker or only with the weak hexagon. Furthermore, he differed from the Old Astrologers in saying that the 9th is good and operative and called it the place of God. Furthermore, this man unfortunately said that the 9th is the joy of the Sun, 3rd the joy of the Moon. All kinds of misconceptions have arisen from this matter.

For Nechepso and Petosiris would never accept these places as good, less so the joys of the Lights. For the Sun, nor the Moon is ever Predominator in these weak places. How can the Lights be joyous, when they are inoperative and not ruling there?

Asclepius' system was a different one. Seeing that those men before him touched only lightly on delineations on the places, he took a man's entire family and put it all over the chart. He said that I - Life, II - Livelihood, III - Brothers, IV - Parents, V - Children, VI - Injury, VII - Wife, VIII - Death. And he said you should turn the chart whenever you want - V concerns Livelihood of Parents, XI concerns Death of Parents etc.

All kinds of meanings were put to the places. Later Hellenistic delineations are proof of the ineffectiveness and ridiculousness of the Hermes scheme.

Whatever meaning you put in a place, do not forget angularity. What good is trigon with an inoperative star, what good is a trigon with a malefic? The 8th and 2nd are good places, they bring association, livelihood, property, support and relief to men, they are operative and square the 5th and 11th places which concern friendships and joyful activities. No astrologer has delineated anything of value out of the 8th place. If you want to study death you need a length of life technique.

petosiris said:

You are way too negative and do not take many statements of that book. If money and popularity are factors (not the best, but it is something) by which we judge astrological expertise, then Valens is most definitely a practicing astrologer, would you not agree?

Also using contemporary cases is not ideal when you have dozens of length of life techniques to showcase. It is obvious to not accept most things that Valens says, but I do not understand the ad hominem.

Yes, Valens believed Nechepso and Petosiris were real pharaoh and astrologer. Is that what you are asking?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean, petosiris. What ad hominem?? I've read Valens Anthologies in its entirety, and portions of it multiple times. Where did I express doubt that Valens was a practising astrologer???? In fact, a lot of the value of his text is that he did indeed anthologize a lot of different works extant in his day that have since been lost to us; and gave worked-out real examples of his methods.

I might note that Valens himself was critical of some of his sources.

I'm not asking anything, but rather making statements. Valens cites both Nechepso and Petosiris, but not always favourably; precisely because Valens was a practicing astrologer and found them too mystical or cryptic. See, for example book 2 sec. 3, 28K (on travel,) and 41 (violent deaths.) In this latter section Valens wrote:

"Petosiris seems to have define the place perfectly, even though he spoke in mystic riddles."

We don't actually know who Valens thought Nechepso and Petosiris were, as it was very common in Antiquity for authors to give themselves pen names after ancient authorities, or even after ancient gods, in order to give their work more authority. Whoever they were, they were not "divine men."

Are you familiar with this work by a really good academic philologist, Stephan Heilen? "Some metrical fragments from Nechepso and Petosiris," http://www.academia.edu/7781974/Some_metrical_fragments_from_Nechepsos_and_Petosiris Heilen translated not only ancient Greek but also Demotic. Philologists of ancient languages can generally tell the region of origin of particluar texts and of copied material within texts. In his summary, Heilan wrote:

"Even if our fragments and testimonia contained an explicit claim to being a translation from the Egyptian, which is not the case, this would require critical examination because such claims are a widespread literary fiction aimed at bestowing greater authority on certain Greek texts and can, therefore, not a priori be trusted." p. 81.

In his introduction, Heilen comes down on the side of Greek authors writing under Egyptian pseudonyms.

Petosiris seems to have been an actual Egyptian scribe from the 4th century, but there is no evidence connecting him to an astrological author (probably one Petese) who used this name. Petosiris, in fact, was a fairly common Egyptian name, altogether. There were two pharoahs named Neko or something similar, but the more famous one lived well before the invention of horoscopic astrology.

Petosiris, if you're interested in ancient Egyptian contributions to astrology, are you familiar with the work of Joanne Conman? I think she spends too much effort castigating Otto Neugebauer, but she's done some interesting research on Egyptian cultural astronomy.

Are you familiar with this article by Micah Ross and Dorian Greenbaum, on a probably Egyptian origin for the ascendant and horoscope houses?

http://www.academia.edu/7370462/The_Role_of_Egypt_in_the_Development_of_the_Horoscope

See also their entry in the Encyclopedia of Ancient History, "Nechepso and Petosiris," https://www.academia.edu/7373510/Nechepso_and_Petosiris

And:

Kim Ryholt, "New Light on the Legendary King Nechepsos of Egypt," J. Egyptian Archaeology, 2011
https://www.academia.edu/1601667/New_Light_on_the_Legendary_King_Nechepsos_of_Egypt

Ryholt identifies the likely candidate for the legendary King Nechepsos. Trouble is, he lived long before the development of horoscopic astrology. So when you find reference to a king Nechepso inventing a technique based on a Hellenistic horoscope, that astrologer would have to have been using Nechepso as a pen-name.

I have no explanation, but mysticism. It is Nechepso who is ''the Compiler'' of the visions of Petosiris who ''walks the midnight aether'', hears ''voice from heaven'', wears a ''dark robe''.

I always thought scholars would figure the Salmeschiniaka and decans can't be Hellenistic only. Egypt at the time of Necho II had relationships with the Assyrians and Babylonians, there might have been exchange of constellations, rising times and mundane delineations. However, it takes a divine inspiration and a vision to create the seven zone system of domiciles. Without it and angles, the relationship of the Sun and the Moon on which the whole forecast depends is futile.

Critodemus, too ''coursing the deep and traversing vast wilds was thought worthy by the gods to reach a safe harbor and a secure anchorage'' and then he describes his ''vision''.

Okaaayyy.....

Petosiris, you take mysticism, I'll take academic research by philologists, Egyptologists, and classicists.

The Egyptian invention of the decans stars for time-keeping purposes is well known. See, for example, Joanne Conman's book and articles. Researchers have speculated on which were the decans stars, but mostly they are not definitively known. The Greeks merely simplified decans into 10-degree segments of the signs.

See, for example: https://www2.le.ac.uk/Members/sls25/paperstarsyear

Valens had little use for mysticism in his own astrology practice.

Yes, but scholars reject any astrological usage of those decans before Hellenists, unless we think time-keeping for religious rituals is astrology, is that correct?

In my opinion, explaining how those originators came up with their astrology texts would be similar to explaining how John Dee and Edward Kelley or Crowley and Neuberg* explored the aethyrs. Poetry, drugs, mysticism or sodomy operations make you write in riddles, but connecting great many things to one another. That or divine revelation.

Astrology has not progressed very much since then, if not the opposite in some ways.

* - There is always one who explores the planes, and another who records and compiles.

I'll stay on-topic, if you don't mind.

Actually, astrology increasingly is an acceptable topic for study in the humanities: the history of astrology, the analysis of ancient astrological texts, or astrology in literature, for example. I don't think the sciences will embrace it anytime soon, but then astrology is not a science.

Again, we need to understand the difference between cultural astronomy and horoscopic astrology. Astrology is a form of cultural astronomy, but most cultural astronomy is not astrology.

Egyptologists have no problem with the study of Egyptian time-keeping through decans stars. It was an old calendar system that originated long before horoscopic astrology. I can supply some references, if you're interested.

Horoscopic astrology is a blend of ancient Babylonian, Greek, and Egyptian elements.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from the OP, I get an impression that your view of V. Valens is, that he is an over rated and shallow traditional Astrologist not worthy of serious studies or follow.

Do you still hold that view?

waybread said:

I'll stay on-topic, if you don't mind.

Actually, astrology increasingly is an acceptable topic for study in the humanities: the history of astrology, the analysis of ancient astrological texts, or astrology in literature, for example. I don't think the sciences will embrace it anytime soon, but then astrology is not a science.

Again, we need to understand the difference between cultural astronomy and horoscopic astrology. Astrology is a form of cultural astronomy, but most cultural astronomy is not astrology.

Egyptologists have no problem with the study of Egyptian time-keeping through decans stars. It was an old calendar system that originated long before horoscopic astrology. I can supply some references, if you're interested.

Horoscopic astrology is a blend of ancient Babylonian, Greek, and Egyptian elements.

Click to expand...

Let's not pretend that studying a ''wretched subject'' and ''superstitions'' means scholars ''accept'' astrology. If it is not a valid science or part of one, astrology will remain a ''wretched subject''. I agree with your last sentence though.

On-topic would be to answer the question of Senecar, because that is what the OP is about.

Just wanted to pop in and say that I appreciate this thread.

I saw waybread say that astrology isn’t a science...I was curious on this because, to me, astrology is indeed a science.

Senecar said:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from the OP, I get an impression that your view of V. Valens is, that he is an over rated and shallow traditional Astrologist not worthy of serious studies or follow.

Do you still hold that view?

Click to expand...

The OP is dated from 2011. At that time I and another member seemed to be debating the relative merits of Valens and Ptolemy, who were contemporaries in ancient Alexandria, Egypt. The term "cage match" was tongue in cheek. I just wanted a different perspective from the misleading anti-Ptolemy claims.

Of course, both are really important sources, but for very different reasons.

I certainly wouldn't call Valens "shallow and over-rated," but it's fair to point out his limits as well as his strengths.

D-Rok said:

Just wanted to pop in and say that I appreciate this thread.

I saw waybread say that astrology isn’t a science...I was curious on this because, to me, astrology is indeed a science.

Click to expand...

Like what? Chemistry, physics, geology, or finding a cure for cancer? Science operates according to the scientific method.

Using "science" as a catch-all for knowledge or as a substitute term for "empirical" is really misleading IMHO.

petosiris said:

Let's not pretend that studying a ''wretched subject'' and ''superstitions'' means scholars ''accept'' astrology. If it is not a valid science or part of one, astrology will remain a ''wretched subject''. I agree with your last sentence though.

On-topic would be to answer the question of Senecar, because that is what the OP is about.

Click to expand...

What's with the "wretched subject"?? Your expression, not mine.

The last I noticed, academics didn't find history, legal studies, literature, or philosophy to be "wretched subjects." History and English literature are not crummy variants of science. They have their own subjects and methods of analysis.

Are you familiar with this program at the University of Wales?

http://www.uwtsd.ac.uk/ma-cultural-astronomy-astrology/