Problems with Vettius Valens... et al.

Haizea said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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)

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.

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" 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..

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

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 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.

sandstone said:

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..

Click to expand...

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"

sandstone said:

after reading the link "A Survey of Vettius Valens" 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?

Click to expand...

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

sandstone said:

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?

Click to expand...

sandstone said:

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..............

Click to expand...

Say that to an academic

sandstone said:

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

Click to expand...

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...

sandstone said:

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..

Click to expand...

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?

[deleted attacking and off-topic remarks - Moderator]

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.

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


[deleted attacking remarks - Moderator]

sandstone said:

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..............

Click to expand...

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

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

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

@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.

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...

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

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.

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.

please get back on the subject, to all

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

JUPITERASC said:

.....
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....

Click to expand...

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.