Problems with Vettius Valens... et al.

dr. farr

Well-known member
Nothing unusual in this: classical Vedic astrology also had a significant amount of variances and differences: Parasara, Jaimini, Varahamihira, held common concepts and also held variant concepts and methodologies: classical Vedic astrology was not a monolith, just as ancient Hellenistic astrology was not a monolith.

I also believe that attempting a distillation and reformulation of elements taken from Hellenistic astrological traditions is a positive thing: its kind of eclectic in essence, and I support such efforts. Practical astrology is not an academic historical review: it is a practical methodology to try to get RESULTS (in delineative analysis and prediction): those who are trying to distill "what works" from material drawn from the old time authors, I think are undertaking a very wothwhile project, and I wish them well. I, of course, have no such agenda (trying to set up any kind of system, such as neo-Hellenism) because I am merely a pure utilitarian eclectic, but I do think efforts by the neo-Hellenists in creating a systematic approach based on elements taken from the divergent Greco/Roman authors, is interesting and worthwhile.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Thank you Jupiter, I mean to reply when someone links something of interest! I read everything you link!
thank you byjove, glad to be of any assistance and 'tis good to have appreciative feedback :smile:

As for the wider discussion, I've been referring a lot recently to an astro. site online linked to me. The gentleman has some strong views (especially against reliance on dignity...) but is clearly a very well-read man and an experienced, practicing astrologer (that one wasn't a poke a Ptolemy!)

Anyway, I just found he's addressed what's been discussed here and in several related threads. He, an astrologer who follows the Hellenistic tradition and holds Persian (Arabic as the rest of us are used to seeing) in high regard, writes that even Hellenistics weren't all in agreement on things, and perhaps less so than today...so, I think he's saying, great stuff, very original/seminal, but note the imperfections too...

http://www.sevenstarsastrology.com/ancient-astrologers-agree-paradigms-chart-lords/
An interesting read byjove, many thanks.

As to agreement amongst astrologers... I predict that to occur on the day when snow survives a landing on an active volcanic eruption!

Nothing unusual in this: classical Vedic astrology also had a significant amount of variances and differences: Parasara, Jaimini, Varahamihira, held common concepts and also held variant concepts and methodologies: classical Vedic astrology was not a monolith, just as ancient Hellenistic astrology was not a monolith.

I also believe that attempting a distillation and reformulation of elements taken from Hellenistic astrological traditions is a positive thing: its kind of eclectic in essence, and I support such efforts. Practical astrology is not an academic historical review: it is a practical methodology to try to get RESULTS (in delineative analysis and prediction): those who are trying to distill "what works" from material drawn from the old time authors, I think are undertaking a very wothwhile project, and I wish them well. I, of course, have no such agenda (trying to set up any kind of system, such as neo-Hellenism) because I am merely a pure utilitarian eclectic, but I do think efforts by the neo-Hellenists in creating a systematic approach based on elements taken from the divergent Greco/Roman authors, is interesting and worthwhile.
I would agree that a practical methodology designed to obtain results in delineative analysis and prediction is the most important factor :smile:
 

waybread

Well-known member
Nothing unusual in this: classical Vedic astrology also had a significant amount of variances and differences: Parasara, Jaimini, Varahamihira, held common concepts and also held variant concepts and methodologies: classical Vedic astrology was not a monolith, just as ancient Hellenistic astrology was not a monolith.

I also believe that attempting a distillation and reformulation of elements taken from Hellenistic astrological traditions is a positive thing: its kind of eclectic in essence, and I support such efforts. Practical astrology is not an academic historical review: it is a practical methodology to try to get RESULTS (in delineative analysis and prediction): those who are trying to distill "what works" from material drawn from the old time authors, I think are undertaking a very wothwhile project, and I wish them well. I, of course, have no such agenda (trying to set up any kind of system, such as neo-Hellenism) because I am merely a pure utilitarian eclectic, but I do think efforts by the neo-Hellenists in creating a systematic approach based on elements taken from the divergent Greco/Roman authors, is interesting and worthwhile.

No argument here, but I have found some proponents assuming a unified system of Hellenistic astrology in the past, or presenting what they do today as the Hellenistic tradition.
 

byjove

Account Closed
Waybread: yes that is exactly what the author of the above link points out, that as tremendously important as Hellenistic material is, they were not as unified as is being said now. I say this in a welcoming way; I'm more comfortable with difference when I read this.

JupiterASC, yes, that link I particularly wanted to point out to you, it was linked to me recently on another thread. Check out his section on over-reliance and misinterpretation on dignity and debility, I don't know how much I agree yet but I'm very moved by the arguements...
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Waybread: yes that is exactly what the author of the above link points out, that as tremendously important as Hellenistic material is, they were not as unified as is being said now. I say this in a welcoming way; I'm more comfortable with difference when I read this.

JupiterASC, yes, that link I particularly wanted to point out to you, it was linked to me recently on another thread. Check out his section on over-reliance and misinterpretation on dignity and debility, I don't know how much I agree yet but I'm very moved by the arguements...
Good to view an opinion written by someone who clearly is well acquainted with the matter byjove :smile:

He is saying that it is evident that
simply because up to date translations to English are in the main attributable solely to Schmidt, we are constrained by Schmidt's personal interpretations which have resulted in "Hellenistic Astrology" being unsurprisingly mostly regarded as 'set in stone' and considered as having been easily delineated in specific ways by all ancient astrologers.

However it is common knowledge that often much is 'lost in translation' therefore unless everyone learns Ancient Greek that's just one of the pitfalls of not reading the subject in the original language.

It has been so interesting to read Mark Riley's alternative offering - even though as Riley himself admits, it is 'full of errors'.

Schmidt is not an astrologer and neither is Mark Riley. Schmidt is a Classics scholar and Mark Riley is a mathematician and linguist :smile:
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
Actually, Mark T. Riley is a retired professor of Latin in the foreign languages department at Sacramento State University. www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt

Does anyone know what is Robert Schmidt's actual educational background? University degrees? He doesn't write like someone with an academic background in history.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Actually, Mark T. Riley is a retired professor of Latin in the foreign languages department at Sacramento State University. www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt
Those are not mutually exclusive! Mark T Riley is a mathematician and linguist:smile:

Does anyone know what is Robert Schmidt's actual educational background? University degrees? He doesn't write like someone with an academic background in history.
someone at skyscript would have the answer - there is a thread discussing Hellenistic astrology there at the moment http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6433&start=90 :smile:
 
Last edited:

waybread

Well-known member
As you know, I have been participating on that thread regularly.

Maybe it depends how you define "mathematician." I've never met Riley but I see that he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Tertullian in the Department of Classics at Stanford, and taught Latin, at least prior to his retirement. Scholars in one field will oftentimes cross boundaries into another, but usually their doctoral work and university appointments define their disciplinary identities.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
As you know, I have been participating on that thread regularly.

Maybe it depends how you define "mathematician." I've never met Riley but I see that he wrote his doctoral dissertation on Tertullian in the Department of Classics at Stanford, and taught Latin, at least prior to his retirement. Scholars in one field will oftentimes cross boundaries into another, but usually their doctoral work and university appointments define their disciplinary identities.
Nevertheless, as you are participating on that thread then its a good opportunity to ask the experts also participating on that thread. You'll find that Mark T. Riley is a linguist and mathematician :smile:
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
..and I am just a homeopath! No degree in linguistics or methematics or history. So what? Until astrology is accepted by academia in its own right (which AINT ever gonna happen!), exploration in this field is open to anyone who takes the time and makes the effort to explore: what they say should be subject to informed scrutiny, and it should be WHAT they say that is looked at and examined, NOT the conventional, mainstream "level" of education the person saying so might have (obviously this does NOT apply to those doing translations, here their credentials relative to languages must be an important factor; but until we have academic degrees in astrology from mainstream universities, there are no academic credentials to "certify" one's capacities and knowledge and insights in astrology, or alchemy, or hermeticism, or divination, or in any other of these metaphysical fields of endeavor)

(Note: apparaently Schmidt has degrees from St. John's College)
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
..and I am just a homeopath! No degree in linguistics or methematics or history. So what? Until astrology is accepted by academia in its own right (which AINT ever gonna happen!), exploration in this field is open to anyone who takes the time and makes the effort to explore: what they say should be subject to informed scrutiny, and it should be WHAT they say that is looked at and examined, NOT the conventional, mainstream "level" of education the person saying so might have (obviously this does NOT apply to those doing translations, here their credentials relative to languages must be an important factor; but until we have academic degrees in astrology from mainstream universities, there are no academic credentials to "certify" one's capacities and knowledge and insights in astrology, or alchemy, or hermeticism, or divination, or in any other of these metaphysical fields of endeavor)

(Note: apparaently Schmidt has degrees from St. John's College)
for waybread, academia is more important. The experts at skyscript shall have chapter and verse regarding Schmidt's qualifications.
Reading the link http://www.csus.edu/fl/latin/Mark_ Riley.htm we find the reasons Mark T Riley made these papers freely available in .pdf format

QUOTE: The following papers were written for publication in Temporini and Haase, eds., Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt II 36.7 (DeGruyer, Berlin). This series seems defunct. Therefore I am making these papers available in .pdf format:

"A Survey of Vettius Valens" - Vettius Valens' Anthologiae is the longest extant astrological work from antiquity.It is unique in several respects: the author was a practicing astrologer; the work includes more than 100 authentic horoscopes of Valens' clients or associates, including his own, which is used as an example many times throughout the work;the work also includes tables and the description of algorithms used by astrologers and mathematicians. My paper was finished in 1996 and does not take account of scholarship since that time” ENDQUOTE

Clearly, Mark T Riley is of the opinion that Valens is unique in being a practicing astrologer whose work is the longest extant astrological work from antiquity :smile:




 

waybread

Well-known member
Look, JupiterAsc, just because I cook dinner for my husband and me doesn't make me a professional chef.

As I indicated above, academics oftentimes apply their field of extertise to other topics, in a cross-fertilization and even cross-disciplinary kind of way. Then most fields are internally varied. Classical studies is a huge field, so we find its scholars writing about Greek and Roman philosophy, poetry, governance, religion, trade, and what have you. This doesn't mean classicists are ticketed philosophers, poets, theologians, economists, and so on. Then linguistics is its own field, oftentimes taught in anthropology departments. So for a classics professor to write about mathematics in antiquity doesn't make him a mathematician, unless s/he also practices mathematics or has an advanced degree in mathematics.

I wouldn't think any of this matters, except that if a given author has a graduate degree or two in a particular field, let alone if s/he has taught it as a tenured professor at a research university, it does indicate a certain level of expertise in research methods that the average astrologer cannot match.

I don't think the average person is aware of how high the bar is for the permanent university faculty in research institutions. In the US and Canadian systems, a Ph. D. is the minimum admission pass to employment, which occurs at the untenured assistant professor level. Ever hear of "publish or perish"? Faculty at research universities are indeed expected to publish their research. In order to get published in academic journals and most academic book publishers, there is a double-blind peer review process and the most prestigious journals and book publishers have high rejection rates. The academics' work may be further criticized in the literature and professional society conferences by other experts in their field.

In most fields today, faculty are also expected to write grant proposals and have a decent success rate in attracting external funding in order to fund their research and their grad student advisees. (And in some fields, post-docs.) Some of these grants are also highly competitive.

Then faculty undergo annual merit reviews, and the newer faculty face a brutal tenure process around year 6 of their appointments, with additional external experts scrutinizing the quality and quantity of their research and with three in-house panels of peers reviewing their files. Some of the assistant professors don't make the cut, and then they have to look for another job, whether within or outside of academia.

If these faculty members do get tenure, they get job security and a promotion to associate professor rank, but the research and writing process continues, with their colleagues heaping scorn upon any Professor Deadwood who fails to keep up this regimen. In mid-career many faculty undergo yet another round of serious internal and external evaluation of their body of research if they seek promotion to full professor status.

All of this research work occurs on top of teaching classes, individual student advising, committee work, and oftentimes administrative appointments.

So while the average professor normally wouldn't know as much about astrology as a professional astrologer would, the scholar would normally know a heck of a lot more about research methodologies and his/her own field of relevant expertise, be it Latin or mathematics. S/he would probably have rigorous standards for presenting facts, simply because s/he is so used to constant critical feedback from experts in the specialized research sub-field. [The one exception here is the scientists' uninformed lampoons of astrology, but I don't think you will find this in the humanities. We also have to distinguish between scientsts writing popular pieces vs. advanced physics or chemistry for their peers.]

Moreover, the astrology basics are not that difficult to learn. Translators of ancient texts will often seek feedback from other experts prior to publication, in any event, to develop the best possible translation.

This is why I get annoyed sometimes if I read an astrologer's post or article and find him assuming things about the past that are simply incorrect, or making blanket assumptions based upon the slenderest kind of evidence. Normally I don't hold astrologers to academic standards, but occasionally they develop a whole belief set about the past that really needs some kind of scrutiny.

I also find it fascinating that some older, well-established astrologers decided to return to accredited universities to earn their doctorates: astrologers like Robert Hand, Liz Greene, and Nicholas Campion. I think they figured out that there is a bigger league out there than the closed-in xenophobic, "they won't understand us anyway" world inhabited by some astrologers.

Do I make mistakes in interpreting astrology's history? For sure. Hopefully we are all here to learn and correct any misconceptions. This is exactly how the give-and-take of dialogue furthers the advance of knowledge.
 

waybread

Well-known member
..and I am just a homeopath! No degree in linguistics or methematics or history. So what? Until astrology is accepted by academia in its own right (which AINT ever gonna happen!), exploration in this field is open to anyone who takes the time and makes the effort to explore: what they say should be subject to informed scrutiny, and it should be WHAT they say that is looked at and examined, NOT the conventional, mainstream "level" of education the person saying so might have (obviously this does NOT apply to those doing translations, here their credentials relative to languages must be an important factor; but until we have academic degrees in astrology from mainstream universities, there are no academic credentials to "certify" one's capacities and knowledge and insights in astrology, or alchemy, or hermeticism, or divination, or in any other of these metaphysical fields of endeavor)

(Note: apparaently Schmidt has degrees from St. John's College)

Thanks, Dr. Farr.

With regard to my previous post, hopefully you can see the problem. Astrology isn't going to be accepted by the academy until astrology raises its bar. Nor should it be accepted. You are well aware of all of the pop-schlock astrology out there. University English departments teach great literature, not Harlequin romances or the syntax of the average text message.

The humanities departments do seem to be opening the door to astrological topics. Generally the focus is not on astrology applied, but on astrology in literature or in history. Ditto for alchemy and hermeticism. The academic research doesn't seem to be on how one practices them, but on what they meant to particular authors or societies.

There is some social science research on people who believe in astrology, as well.

I wish some of the astrologers doing translations had more background in history. I think the contextual background for their work would be very helpful.

I suspect that some accredited universities would permit an undergraduate interdisciplinary Independent Studies major in astrology if the student took a good sampling of history, astronomy, and psychology classes; plus tutorials with an astrologer who could meet the university's standards for adjunct faculty (normally at least a Master's degree.)

University education is not a perfect system. There are no perfect systems. However, it does offer some level of rigour that would benefit serious astrologers.
 

sandstone

Banned
jup asc - thanks for the link to rileys site.. the pdf file "A Survey of Vettius Valens" is a good read..

i agree with waybread over the concerns they express and do think these are worth considering.. it doesn't mean i agree that anyone who does astrology needs to have a phd for me to want to read or learn from them, but i think it is helpful background info that will give me a better perspective on where they are coming from.. one could say it is an elitist attitude to think only those works that have been written or interpreted by scholars are worthy of attention and yet there is some merit in this position. maybe robert schmidt got in a time machine and travelled back in time for all i know, but it is interesting there is no available information on his background.. i also find it interesting how he was one of a few people that started a book publishing company and latched onto focusing on ancient astrology exclusively.. why was this? i also find it interesting that schmidt, hand and zoeller who had started the project hindsight didn't stay together for very long.. why was that? i think there are enough questions that raise more and i think it is fair to want more info on schmidt..

waybread, i just wanted to mention regarding the books you are reading and working thru that the joseph crane book is more of a compilation of ideas that might be useful for someone wanting to apply the methods.. i don't know if it will help enlighten your search for the historical roots of house systems for example.. i note on the link to the page up above on rileys 'a survey of valens' on the bottom of page 10 a comment that you have probably read, but you might want to go over it for another take on the ongoing question of how the houses came about...

i also note on the skyscript thread which i continue to follow how there is an angst towards the question of which direction the houses are going - clockwise or counter-clockwise.. it would seem some folks would prefer not to consider these 2 different directions as a background reason for some of the nature of the houses and yet, these same folks will use the 2 directions as rationale for how they arrive at their conclusions.. the example of 2nd house the gate of hades, verses 8th house of death and the sun setting was a good example of this and i liked the fact you questioned this and asked why it would apply to the 8th and not the 7th.. the quick rationale for it not applying to the 7th is that the 7th is an angular house, but this type of logic seems very circular to me.. this means this, but this other house 'can't mean that because of this' rule or what have you..

my impression is that most astrologers don't give these issues that much consideration, but generally accept the doctrines handed down to them and try applying them in there work.. hopefully i am wrong on this, but i am not sure that i am! it is only when someone comes along with a radically different idea such as for example - only 8 houses, not 12 and going clockwise not counter clockwise that astrologers are pushed into taking a closer look at the basis of house systems.. i can't remember who it was - fagen or? who suggested house systems from antiquity went clockwise, but this was before all the literature was made available thru project hindsight and etc..

i have not read valens, but joseph crane has and goes into explaining some of his techniques, some of them very obscure and some more quickly usable... the link above seems to articulate that valens was a compiler of many other astrologers and astrology authors.. i don't know if i had read that before, but i can't recall reading it anywhere either unless you had mentioned it.. it is almost like valens is this larger then life astrologer when in fact it seems according to riley he was also a compiler like ptolemy, but of a different sort!
 

waybread

Well-known member
James, thanks for your thoughtful post!

For sure, just because someone with a Ph. D. says "x=y" doesn't make it so. We might even call it a fallacy ad hominem or the fallacy of an appeal to authority. But learning about someone's background in most circumstances is helpful in understanding where they are coming from, because it so often influences how and what they write. There is text and then there is sub-text. Both are informative.

Thanks for the info. on the Crane book. Actually I read something by him on the Internet where he took a well-known Hellenistic astrologer to task for not footnoting his work. Sounds like my kind of guy!

Ironically, this same Hellenistic astrologer elsewhere (in an astrology magazine) criticized another traditional astrolger for essentially plagiarizing his work! This is where minimal academic standards could really further the project of any kind of astrology. I like footnotes because if I want to pursue a topic further, or understand more about how an author reached a conclusion, I can see where to look. At a base level, footnotes acknowledge another author's contribution by way of preventing plagiarism.

Casual posts on an Internet forum don't need a high level of polish because they are more like letter-writing or a conversation. But even this forum has plagiarism rules. Hopefully an article posted on a blog or something in print can be held to a higher standard.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
jup asc - thanks for the link to rileys site.. the pdf file "A Survey of Vettius Valens" is a good read..............

...............i have not read valens, but joseph crane has and goes into explaining some of his techniques, some of them very obscure and some more quickly usable... the link above seems to articulate that valens was a compiler of many other astrologers and astrology authors.. i don't know if i had read that before, but i can't recall reading it anywhere either unless you had mentioned it.. it is almost like valens is this larger then life astrologer when in fact it seems according to riley he was also a compiler like ptolemy, but of a different sort!
sandstone IMO there is a crucial difference between Ptolemy and Valens: i.e. (in the words of well known prestigious academic Professor Mark T Riley), "Vettius Valens' Anthologiae is the longest extant astrological work from antiquity.It is unique in several respects: the author was a practicing astrologer; the work includes more than 100 authentic horoscopes of Valens' clients or associates, including his own, which is used as an example many times throughout the work.

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.

Ptolemy built on the work of Apollonius of Perga who (approximately four centuries earlier than Ptolemy) developed a form of geometric particular methods within the geometrical practice, that are to do with circular motion - as well as motions of circles moving on circles and so on - that Ptolemy then applied to discovering the much sought-after geometrical rationale thought to be underlying appearances Thus Ptolemy described a rationale that 'explained' retrograde motion - but incorrectly - (because the planets do not move with uniform circular motion in circles link to webpage illustrating Ptolemy's incorrect, yet mathematically appealing, idea of the universe http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html )

Valens perspective being that of a practicing astrologer meant that Valens was eager to preserve everything he possibly could intact for the benefit of future astrologers. Valens simply compiled without altering what he compiled.

Certainly Valens commented on the various astrological techniques but crucially, did not alter any. That fact taken in tandem with Valen's work being 'the longest extant astrological work from antiquity' understandably obviously makes Valens an important figure. Crucially, Valens utilised not only his own horoscope but also those of more than a 100 authentic horoscopes of his own clients.

Ptolemy doesn't talk very much about people of his own time, instead he talks about observations made centuries earlier by Hipparchus, another great astronomer - Observations used by Ptolemy are largely Babylonian via Hipparchus

And it was Hipparchus who, a century after Apollonius, began applying the Apollonian geometry in the first attempt to describe the movements of the heavenly spheres geometrically.

Hipparchus took the first steps in attempting to make the Apollonian geometry fit the appearances of the heavens - particularly in relation to the moon and the sun - by developing those moving circles as a technique for dealing with the confusing appearances of the heavens

Ptolemy then expanded on the original ideas of both his predecessors, Apollonius and Hipparchus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Perga

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=337188

Albert Timashev while writing an article entitled "Reconstruction of The Major Egyptian Years" has this to say of Ptolemy:

"Today it is well known that Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy was not a representative of a traditional Greek astrological school and, most likely, he was never a practicing astrologer at all. Ptolemy's work Tetrabiblos reflects his personal and sometimes disputable opinions on many questions." http://www.astrologer.ru/article/mey.html.en

Unlike Ptolemy, Valens was a practicing astrologer who provided evidence of well over a hundred of his own clients horoscopes.

Ptolemy was a mathematical theorist.:smile:
 

Attachments

  • PtolemaicUniverse-epicycle.gif
    PtolemaicUniverse-epicycle.gif
    1.7 KB · Views: 27

waybread

Well-known member
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.

1. Are you suggesting that the science of Aristotle was nothing more than "personal prejudice/whim"? What about the stoic philosophy that underlies so much ancient astrology of both Valens and Ptolemy? "Personal prejudice/whim"?

I highly recommend chapters 9-14 in Nicholas Campion's The Dawn of Astrology and M. R. Wright's book Ancient Cosmology in Antiquity. These demonstrate to my satisfaction that Ptolemy was far more plugged into the leading intellectual currents of his day than were astrologers who claimed authority through reference back to what were effectively disappearing religious traditions of ancient Egypt and Babylon.

2. In areas where Ptolemy and Valens and/or other practicing astrologers of antiquity agree, would these other astrologers' work then equally be based upon "personal preduce/whim"? Or would you grant Ptolemy some credit where his work and Valens agree?

3. Do you argue that none of the following branches of astrology, today and in antiquity, are real astrology: mundane, elective, meteorological, and geographical? Is the only real astrology genethliacal? Would you discard modern astrologers as legitimate astrologers if they do not include horoscopes in their books?

Much of Ptolemy's work dealt with non-genethliacal branches of astrology.

Francesca Rochberg, who wrote extensively on Babylonian astrology (for example, The Heavenly Writing), noted that hardly any of the genethliacal materials discovered by archaeologists included any interpretation of the planetary positions given. They were merely written lists of placements, not charts. So would these "horoscopes" be in or out of your personal definition of the real astrology? Do you see the "slippery slope"?

4. What is your evidence that the horoscopes in Valens were even his own clients? Or is this an important point for you? Otto Neugebauer dated all of Valens's horoscopes, and noted that some of them were sufficiently older than Valens (who apparently did not take up the study of astrology till around age 40) that they were suspect as his own clients. One can hardly imagine that all of Valen's illustrious horoscopes of anonymous "governors" were from his own client base, given the territorial divisions of the Roman empire.

5. "Mathematician" or even "physicist" was a common description for astrologers in antiquity. The reason is simple to fathom. One had to know a fair bit of math in order to calculate a horoscope. Look at Valens. His work is replete with arithmetic calculations. There is far more arithmetic in Valens's Anthologies than there is in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos.

In the Bible the word for "astrologer" is "Chaldean." Does this mean that everone from this district of modern-day Iraq was a practicing astrologer? Not hardly. Rather, we have to understand word-usage in the context of period and place.

6. Valens must have been a considerable compiler. This seems evident from the different techniques he gives to determine the same question from the horoscope. I haven't worked them through, but I wonder if they even give the same result.

7. So much of the sensationalistic material in Valens is precisely the reason why I cannot take the ancient astrologers literally as models for astrological practice today. If Valens is someone's astrological hero, I would love to know what she makes of all of Valens's sensationalistic material about what rotten people various astrological placements engender, or all of the unusual ways to die.

8. And once more (with feeling,) scholars do build unpon one another's work. They did so in antiquity. This is what the whole edifice of knowledge is based upon! So giving sources for Ptolemy's work essentially says that he did some homework. One wishes that the authors of antiquity were more forthcoming about their sources, but plagiarism standards in the past were very different than they are today.

If I seem like a proponent of more university education for astrologers, these are some of the reasons why. Nevermind the specifics. Let's look at the bigger contexts of knowledge creation and transmission.

 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Just to correct anyone who thinks academic arguments are unassailable. I have a point of view with which many agree and many disagree. My point of view is:
IMO there is a crucial difference between Ptolemy and Valens: i.e. (in the words of well known prestigious academic Professor Mark T Riley), "Vettius Valens' Anthologiae is the longest extant astrological work from antiquity.It is unique in several respects: the author was a practicing astrologer; the work includes more than 100 authentic horoscopes of Valens' clients or associates, including his own, which is used as an example many times throughout the work.

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.

Ptolemy built on the work of Apollonius of Perga who (approximately four centuries earlier than Ptolemy) developed a form of geometric particular methods within the geometrical practice, that are to do with circular motion - as well as motions of circles moving on circles and so on - that Ptolemy then applied to discovering the much sought-after geometrical rationale thought to be underlying appearances Thus Ptolemy described a rationale that 'explained' retrograde motion - but incorrectly - (because the planets do not move with uniform circular motion in circles link to webpage illustrating Ptolemy's incorrect, yet mathematically appealing, idea of the universe http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html )

Valens perspective being that of a practicing astrologer meant that Valens was eager to preserve everything he possibly could intact for the benefit of future astrologers. Valens simply compiled without altering what he compiled.

Certainly Valens commented on the various astrological techniques but crucially, did not alter any. That fact taken in tandem with Valen's work being 'the longest extant astrological work from antiquity' understandably obviously makes Valens an important figure. Crucially, Valens utilised not only his own horoscope but also those of more than a 100 authentic horoscopes of his own clients.

Ptolemy doesn't talk very much about people of his own time, instead he talks about observations made centuries earlier by Hipparchus, another great astronomer - Observations used by Ptolemy are largely Babylonian via Hipparchus

And it was Hipparchus who, a century after Apollonius, began applying the Apollonian geometry in the first attempt to describe the movements of the heavenly spheres geometrically.

Hipparchus took the first steps in attempting to make the Apollonian geometry fit the appearances of the heavens - particularly in relation to the moon and the sun - by developing those moving circles as a technique for dealing with the confusing appearances of the heavens

Ptolemy then expanded on the original ideas of both his predecessors, Apollonius and Hipparchus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Perga

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=337188

Albert Timashev while writing an article entitled "Reconstruction of The Major Egyptian Years" has this to say of Ptolemy:

"Today it is well known that Greek scientist Claudius Ptolemy was not a representative of a traditional Greek astrological school and, most likely, he was never a practicing astrologer at all. Ptolemy's work Tetrabiblos reflects his personal and sometimes disputable opinions on many questions." http://www.astrologer.ru/article/mey.html.en

Unlike Ptolemy, Valens was a practicing astrologer who provided evidence of well over a hundred of his own clients horoscopes.

Ptolemy was a mathematical theorist.:smile:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Additionally, to quote Curtis Manwaring of the Lost Horoscope X-files

"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":smile:
 
Top