waybread
Well-known member
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?
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?
Last edited: