Arabic Parts in Hellenistic Astrology

Senecar

Well-known member
The presumption that one may compare Valens
to Medieval Horary astrologers

without having read Valens THE ANTHOLOGY

and
without having read Medieval Horary astrologers

highlights who is flimsy and skewed on this matter

obviously
the word "comparison" implies comparison
and clearly
when one has nothing to compare
due to not having read Valens
that's "skewed"

not so wise either
to make comparisons between Valens
and medieval horary astrologers
without reading and studying Valens obviously
and that's nothing to do with being or not being a moderator
it's just commensense
and fairness in debate

by the way, this is a FREE online astrology forum
on which anyone may comment


You can compare anything under the Sun.

People often compare nothing and something.
 

petosiris

Banned
I'm finally home after 7-weeks away. If you would like to pursue this topic further, I can delve into my archives of academic articles for citations.

At page 172 Neugebauer states ''This shows that the longitudes in Vettius Valens are sidereal longitudes whereas the later authors operate with tropical longitudes obviously following the norm adopted by Ptolemy and Theon.''

Not all later according to recent (we should recognize that Neugebauer did not have access to all Hellenistic and Egyptian sources) academic sources I have cited here who report ''abundant evidence'' of sidereal conversion - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9957&start=15

I have found that the Palchus horoscopes with degrees to have great amount of accuracy with Aldebaran 15, usually the exact for the Sun, Moon and a few stars. During the making of this I may post his charts too.

Yes, I believe it is worth discussing this with you. I have been interested in making a list of all Valens' charts sidereal by tropical anyways to show the difference for quite a while now. I will start in the order that Neugebauer listed them. Get a software, set your city to Alexandria and let's begin.

1. Sun - Scorpio
Moon - Cancer
Saturn - Aquarius
Jupiter - Sagittarius
Mars! - Scorpio
Venus - Libra
Mercury - Scorpio
Asc - Libra

Neugebauer computes it for 25 October 50 AD (he uses Julian) and notes that Mars is at 27 Libra. Mars is in Scorpio with Spica zodiacs (I will use this term as convention for later than a degree than Aldebaran), in Aldebaran it is at 29 Libra. No other date is possible with Mercury position, however you might say that Mars was hard to calculate and frequently wrong, that could certainly be the case, but if too many cases are like that on average, then it is likely to indicate a different zodiac, based on statistics. Spica zodiac - 1. Moving on.

2. Sun, Venus, Asc - Taurus
Moon - Aquarius
Saturn! - Cancer
Jupiter - Libra
Mars and Mercury - Gemini

Neugebauer computes this for sunrise 1 May 61 and notes later that Valens uses the Babylonian System A for rising times. In tropical, Saturn is in Gemini.
(Aldebaran - 1, Spica - 2)

3. Sun - Aquarius
Moon and Jupiter - Scorpio
Saturn - Cancer
Mars!!, Venus! and Mercury - Capricorn
Asc - Pisces

Computed for 22 January 62 about 10 a.m. Notes that Venus is in Sagittarius with tropical, but that Mars is a sign and a bit away from its position given in the text, and he gives the opinion that is a mistake in the text for Scorpio as such errors are unusual. That being said, the chart once again does not work with tropical longitudes. (Tropical - 0, Aldebaran - 2, Spica - 3)

4. Sun, Moon and Mercury - Gemini
Saturn - Leo
Jupiter - Pisces
Mars - Cancer
Venus - Aries
Asc - Capricorn

Neugi finds ''excellent agreement'' for 24 May 65 about 8 p.m. Works with all zodiacs. (Tropical - 1, Aldebaran - 3, Spica - 4 out of four)

5. Sun and Mercury - Scorpio
Moon - Aries
Saturn - Virgo
Jupiter - Pisces
Mars - Leo
Venus - Sagittarius

Neugebauer finds this horoscope problematic and has 31 October 65 about 8 a.m. as a tentative date. Venus and Mars are in Libra...

I checked 27 October 125 which I find more plausible, three stars are in wrong signs, but they are slightly nearer their hypothetical positions and I can imagine Mercury and Jupiter being slightly off by a few degrees and Mars with a sign. I wonder if I should even count this, but I will count 1 for all. (Tropical - 2, Aldebaran - 4, Spica - 5 out of five) I will continue in a subsequent post, preferably in another thread, as I do not have anything more to discuss with the op.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I want to ask where is the best forum to discuss the charts given by Valens.
Is it ok to do it here on the traditional forum?
Traditional forum is a good place to discuss the charts given by Valens :smile:
good idea to commence new thread with that specific focus
0P of this thread is mainly interested in HORARY perspective it seems
as well as Arabic Parts
 

Chrysalis

Well-known member
OP is asking about Arabic parts but for horary yes, are we saying now that horary is not traditional ?

There always has to be some kind of dispute with regards to traditionalism.

"by the way, this is a FREE online astrology forum
on which anyone may comment"

You just love to pick fault with certain people, and its annoying.

The only person whos given any valuable reply on this thread is Dr farr.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
OP is asking about Arabic parts but for horary yes, are we saying now that horary is not traditional ?

There always has to be some kind of dispute with regards to traditionalism.

"by the way, this is a FREE online astrology forum
on which anyone may comment"

You just love to pick fault with certain people, and its annoying.

The only person whos given any valuable reply on this thread is Dr farr.
for clarity here is the OP :smile:
Hellenistic Astrologers, I would imagine
had been exchanging a lot of information and technicalities with Arabic Astrologers.

How much then, have they inherited and integrated Arabic Astrological principles into theirs and by whom?

For instance, how significantly have they used the Arabic Parts into their Astrology in practice? Any examples?

notice no mention made of HORARY
hence clarification required obviously
 

Chrysalis

Well-known member
No clarification needed, just because he's specifically asking in regards to horary, why you feel the need to belittle him, is what i don't like.

He's asked a question regarding arabic parts, but in regards for him for horary, in my eyes there is no issue, in your eyes there seems to be.

Just because its on the "Traditional Astrology" thread, you have issues....once again.

You act like a mod in this section when your not.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
No clarification needed, just because he's specifically asking in regards to horary, why you feel the need to belittle him, is what i don't like.

He's asked a question regarding arabic parts, but in regards for him for horary, in my eyes there is no issue, in your eyes there seems to be.

Just because its on the "Traditional Astrology" thread, you have issues....once again.

You act like a mod in this section when your not.
I requested clarification and I am entitled to do that
you cannot know whether or not someone requires clarification
and
unless you are a moderator
you cannot censure someone for seeking clarification
:smile:
 

Dirius

Well-known member
These days, I am focusing on learning about Horary astrology, but there is nothing to read about Valens, because obviously he has not written anything about Horary. :)

So my comparison is based on just my little knowledge from Wiki
and from Chris Brennan's book.

I don't feel that you must read the whole Valens work just to compare him and some Medieval Astrologers.

For Horary, you can still compare Valens and other Horary astrologers, and it takes only a few seconds to come to the answer. Valens has not written anything on Horary. End of comparison :)

Calling Valens as primitive is not only wrong, but innacurate.

He is by far the most complex astrologers from ancient times. His anthology is a body of works compiled from different sources at the time. His personal techniques, are not only ingenius and original, but complex and hard.

Lilly instead, simply translated most of his work from bonatti. The evidence is clear when you analyse the Profection method in The Anthology and compare it with the one in Lilly's Christian Astrology. While Valens method is complex, and mixes different planetary positions to prescribe a large number of accurate scenarios, Lilly minimises it to a more simple version of zodiac order that pronosticates more general asumptions for the year.

Valens also has a historical importance, considering he is the source for many authors whose works have been lost to history.

And don't get me wrong, I am a huge user of Horary, and have used Lilly's method plenty of times. But Valens as a source of teaching, is by far more important. Lilly just happened to be more famous in the reinassance, but his body of work is similar to every other british astrologer of the time.
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
o

I have worked a few dozen of Valens signs and basically a lot are with different signs in tropical using any day. Because of inaccuracy I got a few only working with tropical, but they are really few. If you want, we can start discussing horoscopes in some thread.

It may not have been Ptolemy. The Thrasyllus summary contains an objection to those (who?) who said that it began from the first degree of Aries rather than the eighth. The Hellenistic astronomers have been doing tropical astronomy for centuries, but despite that, most of the evidence for early Hellenistic astrology is sidereal, because the rising times tables are for a sidereal zodiac, in fact there are two systems, one with Aries 8 and the other with Aries 10. There were no rising times tables for Aries 1 and from this I conclude that Nechepso and Petosiris were using sidereal zodiac, as they gave the rising times for their clima according to Valens.

Ptolemy was the first one who offered somewhat accurate tropical rising times for every latitude. His astronomy and handy tables were the best thing out there at the time.

On Lots actually being places rather than degrees regardless of their calculation, I recommend you read this discussion and a great post by Levente - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9952 /

Maybe this deserves a separate thread, as it is liable to veer off-topic from the OP.

I share your passion and interest in the origins of horoscopic astrology. Unfortunately I am just home now after 7 weeks away, and all kinds of stuff has piled up in the interim needing my attention. This situation isn't helped by my notes and article xeroxes being in disarray. I would like to get to this as I can.

BTW, a few years ago, Deborah Houlding started a thread on Skyscript questioning whether Valens actually used whole signs. This spurred my interest in calculating those of his charts that had adequate data. After making a few adjustments to Neugebauer and Van Hoesen's dates and degrees, I found that their data matched Valens' verbal descriptions of the horoscope natives only when I used whole signs. (Unless Valen's natives all had really late degrees rising, which I doubted.)

Ptolemy basically said you could start the zodiacal wheel of the year at any time; and in his day, there were different "new years" to choose from around the known world.The Babylonian calendar was sidereal, but started with the month of Aries in Ptolemy's day. It wasn't clear what degree this was, with 8 and 5 degrees being floated. Ptolemy probably arbitrarily moved up the zodiac calendar to 0 Aries for the sake of elegance/simplicity.

Sorry, Petosiris-- normally I like to back up what I write with citations, but I would have to take a lot more time now to do that. Hopefully things will flatten out next week.

I would love to see your citations for Nechepso and Petosiris: two shadowy Hellenistic figures, indeed, who wrote under pseudonyms, according to Stephan Heilen. https://www.academia.edu/7781974/Some_metrical_fragments_from_Nechepsos_and_Petosiris
 

waybread

Well-known member
According to Kenneth Bowser, it was Babylonians who had real sophisticated Astrology based on advanced Astronomy.

They have had their own Ephemerides, calculated predictions for when various stars will rise and down. They even had calculated heliarical intervals of the planets. They had concept of Dignities and Exaltation of planets in the house etc.

It was Hellenstic astrolgers who were learning from them and also from the Egyptian astrologers about all these techniques of astrology.

In Greece and Rome, Astrology was regarded as crime and evil based on superstitious beliefs, and Astrologers were chased out, arrested and punished.

And most of the practicing Astrologers in ancient Greece and Rome were mostly from Mesopotamia, Egypt and Babylonia.

Therefore Hellenistic Astrology was in primitive state even in Valens time, and development was slow.

Senecar, I think it's important to straighten out the history if you wish to refer to it. There is a way that the past happened.

On the Babylonians, see Francesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing. The Mesopotamians invented ephemerides. Their astrology was primarily mundane, focused on king and country. What they didn't have was the Greeks' advances in mathematics, such as trigonometry and spherical geometry. They did not calculate the ascendant point, and so didn't use houses.

This is relevant to your OP, as calculating most of the Arabic parts (lots) depends upon having an ascendant degree.

Their astrology diffused into Greece, probably in in 4th century BCE and throughout the Hellenistic world. Our horoscopic astrology probably originated in Alexandria, Egypt, in the 1st or 2nd century BCE, but little is known about this early period.

Astrology was actually really popular in ancient Greece and Rome. I really recommend Frederick Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics. When astrology was banned in Rome, it had to do with fears of corruption by foreign influences, plus the great potential for social unrest caused by political predictions. This didn't stop astrology in other parts of the Roman empire. Some astrologers were foreigners, but others were Roman citizens and even the occasional slave.

Hellenistic astrology was hardly primitive! How much of it have you read in the original (English translation)? Had you read Valens, you would know that he used the ascendant, MC, and the planets known in his day (through Saturn.)
 
Last edited:

Senecar

Well-known member
Senecar, I think it's important to straighten out the history if you wish to refer to it. There is a way that the past happened.

On the Babylonians, see Francesca Rochberg, The Heavenly Writing. The Mesopotamians invented ephemerides. Their astrology was primarily mundane, focused on king and country. What they didn't have was the Greeks' advances in mathematics, such as trigonometry and spherical geometry. They did not calculate the ascendant point, and so didn't use houses.

This is relevant to your OP, as calculating most of the Arabic parts (lots) depends upon having an ascendant degree.

Their astrology diffused into Greece, probably in in 4th century BCE and throughout the Hellenistic world. Our horoscopic astrology probably originated in Alexandria, Egypt, in the 1st or 2nd century BCE, but little is known about this early period.

Astrology was actually really popular in ancient Greece and Rome. I really recommend Frederick Cramer, Astrology in Roman Law and Politics. When astrology was banned in Rome, it had to do with fears of corruption by foreign influences, plus the great potential for social unrest caused by political predictions. This didn't stop astrology in other parts of the Roman empire. Some astrologers were foreigners, but others were Roman citizens and even the occasional slave.

Hellenistic astrology was hardly primitive! How much of it have you read in the original (English translation)? Had you read Valens, you would know that he used the ascendant, MC, and the planets known in his day (through Saturn.)

I have scanned through Valens book, but haven't read it in full. But I read, as I said before, Brennan's Hellenistic Astrology. I am not saying Valens is rubbish. He is influential certainly. But he is also primitive in a way old style and simpler than even his earlier counter parts in Babylonia = that's the impression I got.

It was really interesting, because he is a later astrologer than the earlier Babylonian astrologers, and yet it is definite right to conclude that he sound more ancient than the Babylonians. Because for the fact that Valens does not talk about complicated astronomical calculations and observations in astrology, while the Babylonians are depicted in Bowser's book as Astrologers who used Astronomy too.
 
Last edited:

Senecar

Well-known member
Traditional forum is a good place to discuss the charts given by Valens :smile:
good idea to commence new thread with that specific focus
0P of this thread is mainly interested in HORARY perspective it seems
as well as Arabic Parts

You seem to have habit of misjudging others. I have said "These days I am focusing on Horary."I have never said I am mainly interested in Horary perspective and Arabic parts. Arabic parts is just a thread started by me, and Horary had been mentioned in passage to comparing Valens to Medieval Astrologers. They are not blooming my MAIN interest.

However, if you recall correctly what you have done - you started talking about Sidereal and Tropical Astrology suddenly remember?

I don't understand how you come to such conclusion just by your imagination :) Plus you seem to attack others for off topic, while not realising your digressing into off topic many times repeatedly. We are talking about Traditional Astrology topics in general in this thread, but you suddenly tell people go and read such and such, and then prejudging others interest based on just part of what they said, not full. You seem to read only part of the sentence, and judge them.

Think about it = that is not discussion about traditional astrology. What you are doing has nothing to do with astrological debate. :)

And please remember, I am only responding and clarifying on your actions. I am just pointing out your ways, as you did. It's like saying "What about you?"
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Not even having to stretch as far as the modernists
if you compare Valens

to some Medieval Astrologers
or Lily
you would know that
he is primitive and limited
.
that comment highlights clearly
the lack of understanding of someone who has neither read nor studied Valens

Calling Valens as primitive is not only wrong, but innacurate.

He is by far the most complex astrologers from ancient times.
His anthology is a body of works compiled from different sources at the time.
His personal techniques, are not only ingenius and original, but complex and hard.
Quite so - calling VETTIUS VALENS "primitive"
is remarkable
given the obvious complexity of his work THE ANTHOLOGY
Lilly instead, simply translated most of his work from bonatti.
The evidence is clear when you analyse the Profection method in The Anthology
and compare it with the one in Lilly's Christian Astrology.
the person who slurs Valens as allegedly "primitive" :smile:
has not
analysed the Profection method in Valens ANTHOLOGY
and has not compared it
with the one in Lilly's Christian Astrology

While Valens method is complex, and mixes different planetary positions
to prescribe a large number of accurate scenarios
Lilly minimises it to a more simple version of zodiac order
that pronosticates more general asumptions for the year.

Valens also has a historical importance, considering he is the source
for many authors whose works have been lost to history.

And don't get me wrong, I am a huge user of Horary, and
have used Lilly's method plenty of times.


But Valens as a source of teaching, is by far more important.


Lilly just happened to be more famous in the reinassance
but his body of work
is similar to every other british astrologer of the time
.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
I have scanned through Valens book, but haven't read it in full. But I read, as I said before, Brennan's Hellenistic Astrology. I am not saying Valens is rubbish. He is influential certainly. But he is also primitive in a way old style and simpler than even his earlier counter parts in Babylonia = that's the impression I got.

It was really interesting, because he is a later astrologer than the earlier Babylonian astrologers, and yet it is definite right to conclude that he sound more ancient than the Babylonians. Because for the fact that Valens does not talk about complicated astronomical calculations and observations in astrology, while the Babylonians are depicted in Bowser's book as Astrologers who used Astronomy too.

You are comparing the work of an entire civilization that flourished for 2 millenia, and produced a body of knowledge big enough to fill a library (ashurbanipal)... with the work of one astrologer.

But what makes it ironic, is that you have neither read Valens, or the babylonian body of work (you've read 2 books of authors that talk about them).

is your post serious? :tongue:

Even so your perception about Valens is clearly mistaken given you haven't actually read him. From the start of book one Valens deals with astronomical positions for building an ephemeris, coordinates, rising times, etc. I could quote the entire book...but just a tiny bit of book one:

Vettius Valens, Anthologies, Book I

13K;12P. The Visibility Periods of the Moon.
The visibility periods of the moon are as follows: in its first day it appears 4/5 of an hour. In its second day it appears 1 3/5 of an hour. Forecast the time <of its visibility> by multiplying the days <since new moon> by 4, then dividing by 5. For example: it is 15 days since new moon; 4 times this equals 60, of which 1/5 is 12; the moon, being full, will be visible 12 hours.

Day__Visibility Period__ Day__Visibility Period
1 ___ 4/5 hour___ 9_____7 1/5
2 ___ 1 3/5 _____10____ 8
3____ 2 2/5_____ 11 ___8 4/5
4___ 3 1/5 ______12____ <9 3/5>

14K;13P. The Invisibility Period of the Moon.:
The moon becomes invisible as it approaches conjunction with the sun. The calculation of this in each sign is as follows: take one-half of the rising time of the sign in which the sun is located, and at that point the moon will be invisible. For example: the sun in Aries in the second klima. The rising time of this sign is 20, half of which is 10. Subtract 10 from 30° <Aries 1° = Pisces 30°>. The moon will become invisible at Pisces 20°. The

The month is 29 1/2 days; the year 354 days.
The Sun In_____Half of Rising Time
The Moon Becomes Invisible In:
Taurus 12______Aries 18°______ Gemini 14
Taurus 16° /28P/ ____ Cancer 16 Gemini 14° _____Leo 18/29K/
Cancer 12° ______Virgo 20 ______Leo 10°

15K;14P. The Third, Seventh, and Fortieth Days of the Moon:
The third, seventh, and fortieth days of the moon as follows: assume the moon is in Scorpio 7°; the third day will be in Sagittarius 7°. [It is necessary to investigate the day in this way. Sagittarius 7° has become the third day.] In the nativity chart the seventh will be found in square, at Aquarius 7°. The fortieth will be at Taurus 7°. (Some add 160° to the moon’s position at birth and count off this amount from the moon’s sign. Others add to the moon’s position at birth <its positions> on the third and seventh and fortieth days, then after calculating, they interpret the moon at those places.)

In general they note the fortunate, unfortunate, and average nativities according to the third, seventh, and fortieth days: if these locations are beheld by benefics in operative places, and not by malefics, then you can predict exceedingly great good fortune. If two of these locations are beheld by benefics and one by malefics, then you can predict average fortune. If three are beheld by malefics, with the benefics turned away, then predict misfortune. If the situation is mixed, say “average".

19K;17P. A Hipparcheion Concerning the Calculation of the Sign of the Moon:

I handily find the sign of the moon as follows: add the <correct> factor for the year in question from the table of kings below. Divide the factor by three, not discarding the remainder, but keeping it. If the remainder is one, add 10 to the number; if the remainder is 2, add 20; if the remainder is 3, add nothing— the number divides evenly. Next take one-half of the months from Thoth until the birth date, and add the number of days <in the month of birth> to the first number. Divide by 30 (if possible) and count off the remainder from the sun’s sign. If it was in the beginning <of the sign>, give 2 1/2 <to each sign>; if it is towards the end, give the appropriate amount. The moon is wherever the count stops. Use the same method to find the date of a given nativity: add the factor to the year in question and divide (as explained) by 3. Then add one-half of the months, note the number. Next estimate the distance from the sun to the moon /31P/ by assigning 2 1/2 <days> to each sign. Now determine which is the larger number. If <the number derived from> the distance from the sun to the moon is larger, /32K/ subtract from it the previously calculated number and the result will show the date. If the distance is less, add 30 to it, then subtract the previously calculated number. If the two numbers are both divisible by 30, the moon is in conjunction with the sun.

No other author in antiquity or modern times spends so much ink into analysing and devising techniques for pronostication based on a subject so small as as Valens does. And this is just about the Moon's position relative to its visibility in the sky. You don't find this level of complexity in either Lilly, Bonatti, Firmicus, Ptolomy, etc.

The anthology pretty much covers every subject and topic regarding birth chart analysis that existed in the ancient world, and to a much greater extent that most other authors did.
 
Last edited:

Senecar

Well-known member
Complex writings doesn't mean that it is more sophisticated. Often simpler system could be more practical and accurate for real applications in daily mundane life.

I wasn't meaning Valens is primitive in the sense that his system is rubbish or useless. I meant that it is ancient sounding and archaic in style. That doesn't mean it is poor and useless. I was going to read it, but other stuff to do and to read, and it was just put back.

So OK you guys think Valens great and he is one of the greatest arstrologer in history. Can you tell us why you think so? List them. What is the difference between Valens and other astrologers in what point and area.

And can you also confirm that his techniques (which are quite different from other astrologers) are used in real astrological delineations? And proven to be superior and more accurate than others techniques? How?

That would help for clarifying the path of the thread.

And OK, my opinion on the topic is largely based on what I read from Fagan and Bowser books. But it is one thing to mention certain books when they are related to the thread or post, or even ask if the posters had read them, BUT quite ANOTHER, to prejudge and say that you have not read the books, so your view is flimsy. I mean when you do that, you are not discussing topics anymore, but getting personal.
 
Last edited:

petosiris

Banned
Maybe this deserves a separate thread, as it is liable to veer off-topic from the OP.

I share your passion and interest in the origins of horoscopic astrology. Unfortunately I am just home now after 7 weeks away, and all kinds of stuff has piled up in the interim needing my attention. This situation isn't helped by my notes and article xeroxes being in disarray. I would like to get to this as I can.

BTW, a few years ago, Deborah Houlding started a thread on Skyscript questioning whether Valens actually used whole signs. This spurred my interest in calculating those of his charts that had adequate data. After making a few adjustments to Neugebauer and Van Hoesen's dates and degrees, I found that their data matched Valens' verbal descriptions of the horoscope natives only when I used whole signs. (Unless Valen's natives all had really late degrees rising, which I doubted.)

Ptolemy basically said you could start the zodiacal wheel of the year at any time; and in his day, there were different "new years" to choose from around the known world.The Babylonian calendar was sidereal, but started with the month of Aries in Ptolemy's day. It wasn't clear what degree this was, with 8 and 5 degrees being floated. Ptolemy probably arbitrarily moved up the zodiac calendar to 0 Aries for the sake of elegance/simplicity.

Sorry, Petosiris-- normally I like to back up what I write with citations, but I would have to take a lot more time now to do that. Hopefully things will flatten out next week.

I would love to see your citations for Nechepso and Petosiris: two shadowy Hellenistic figures, indeed, who wrote under pseudonyms, according to Stephan Heilen. https://www.academia.edu/7781974/Some_metrical_fragments_from_Nechepsos_and_Petosiris

Obviously Valens uses mostly whole signs, you can't use houses without degrees of planets. If you haven't found out that by now, maybe that is why you have not found that he does not use a tropical zodiac. He uses the quadrant MC a few times in the latter books though.

''Now the rising times of the signs in the Tables of Rising Times of Hypsicles are in error if the period <in question> amounts to one or two years…but the King has revealed the rising times only for the first klima'' - Valens, translation by Riley

(Btw, some scholars believe that the Rising Times of Hypsicles prompted the development of Hellenistic astrology, as that text was the most widely used text for the estimation of the ascendant until Ptolemy.)

Until Ptolemy, the only rising time tables amongst astrologers were System A or System B which at the time placed the vernal equinox at Aries at 10 and 8 respectively.

Valens uses the System B equinox, but the rising times of System A. From this I conclude that Nechepso and Petosiris used either of those two. This also explains why Thrasyllus was criticizing the tropical zodiac (and said that the equinox occured at the 8th degree) in the first century, as he had access to texts of Nechepso and Petosiris. Dorotheus, Critodemus and Vettius Valens and their contemporaries also prefered a non-tropical zodiac.

As for the New Year, Valens:
''In general, the old astrologers took the ruler of the year and of the universal rotation from the first day of Thoth (where they put the start of the new year), but it is more scientific to take it from the rising of Sirius.

Some astrologers do not like to start the year with the rising of Sirius. It is possible to use any given starting point in citing an example, since we see that men begin the year differently in the different latitudes. Still, let us assume that the system in which the calculation starts with the rising of Sirius and proceeds to the birth date is more scientific. Most use this as the beginning of the year. ''
- transl. Riley

The Babylonians had the sidereal Aries and they had a Nisan month, which are two separate things, just as March and Aries are. No mention of Aries ingress anywhere in Valens, he prefers the rising of Sirius with a few mystical techniques. This is a poor argument for tropicalism.
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Complex writings doesn't mean that it is more sophisticated.
Read Valens then form your opinion on sophistication of Valens

Often simpler system could be more practical and accurate for real applications in daily mundane life.

I wasn't meaning Valens is primitive in the sense that his system is rubbish or useless.
I meant that it is ancient sounding and archaic in style.
There's a difference between "primitive"
and
"ancient and sounding archaic in style"


That doesn't mean it is poor and useless.
I was going to read it, but other stuff to do and to read, and
it was just put back.
Valens is a good read
So OK you guys think Valens great
and he is one of the greatest arstrologer in history.
Can you tell us why you think so?
can you tell us why you think it unnecessary to read Valens
while at the same time
criticising Valens
List them.
What is the difference between Valens and other astrologers in what point and area.
for answers read his ANTHOLOGY FREE online at http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius valens entire.pdf
then read these other astrologers you mention
and then form your own opinion

And can you also confirm that his techniques
(which are quite different from other astrologers)
are used in real astrological delineations?
And proven to be superior and more accurate than others techniques? How?
That would help for clarifying the path of the thread.
nothing prevents anyone from reading Valens FREE online http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius valens entire.pdf
and forming own opinions
And OK,
my opinion on the topic is largely based
on what I read from Fagan and Bowser books.
so read THE ANTHOLOGY itself

But it is one thing to mention certain books when they are related to the thread or post, or
even ask if the posters had read them, BUT quite ANOTHER, to prejudge
and say that you have not read the books, so your view is flimsy.
I mean when you do that, you are not discussing topics anymore, but getting personal.
actually, if someone has not read and studied Valens
then obviously
when that person criticises Valens
clearly
that persons opinion is not based on firm ground

Hellenistic astrology was hardly primitive!

How much of it have you read in the original (English translation)?


Had you read Valens, you would know
that he used the ascendant, MC, and the planets known in his day (through Saturn.)
Exactly
 

Senecar

Well-known member
Read Valens then form your opinion on sophistication of Valens

There's a difference between "primitive"
and
"ancient and sounding archaic in style"


Valens is a good read
can you tell us why you think it unnecessary to read Valens
while at the same time
criticising Valens

for answers read his ANTHOLOGY FREE online at http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius valens entire.pdf
then read these other astrologers you mention
and then form your own opinion


nothing prevents anyone from reading Valens FREE online http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/vettius valens entire.pdf
and forming own opinions

so read THE ANTHOLOGY itself

actually, if someone has not read and studied Valens
then obviously
when that person criticises Valens
clearly
that persons opinion is not based on firm ground


Exactly


You have not answered any of my questions, but just hanging onto the point I have not read Valens until the end of the world :)

You have read Valens, so please answer all my questions.
 
Top