11/16 Your supporting evidence for the presence of quadrant places in Valens – II 6,1; II 17,89; VIII 9,5–6; and VII 6,111–114

One of the main theses of your paper is portraying whole-sign places as an inferior, approximate method that is never really defined and is never advocated. Consequently, you conclude (p. 40), “it […] seems doubtful whether that practice merits the designation ‘system,’ at least as it relates to the work of Vettius Valens.??? This conclusion is based on your interpretation of the adjective platikos (section 2), which you do not support with any arguments; on your ultimately not very conclusive attempt to relativize the meaning of z??dion/signum (sections 3–5), which is essential for you to be able to dismiss the evidence of the numerous sources referring to the places as “signs??? (section 6); your ignoring of the clear allusions to and de facto definitions of the whole-sign places (section 7); your speculations on the calculation and place division methods in the horoscopes, which substitute proper investigations (sections 8–9); and your ignoring of Valens’s single conclusive horoscope (section 10).

Your other central thesis is that (p. 39) “quadrant divisions constituted Valens’ preferred method of calculating places by degree.??? To reach this conclusion, first you need to establish III 2,15–20 as a definition of the quadrant division of the places (pp. 9–12); then, you rely on three horoscopes and two puzzling passages as evidence.

One of these passages (II 6,1, cited and analyzed on pp. 13–14) actually acts as a prelude to your relativization of the meaning of z??dion. The text suggests that the auspicious indications of the benefics in the 11th whole-sign place are more manifest if they are in a trine with the Lot of Fortune and in a sextile with the ascendant, which latter condition looks redundant. You observe (p. 14), “[t]he implication is that a planet may occupy the eleventh place without aspecting the ascendant.??? Other possible, equally inconclusive, explanations are that degree-precise aspects are meant, or the sentence is somehow corrupt. In any case, parallel conditions do not appear in the descriptions of the remaining places (in II 4–5 and 7–15), and “Rhetorius,??? who reuses some of Valens’s material from these chapters, also does not mention anything like this in his corresponding chapter (V 57).

The other passage (II 17,89, cited on p. 24), which seems to allow that planets in the ascendant and the 11th place will be in a square, may either refer to an equal division or be the result of textual corruption again: it is, once more, an isolated and anomalous case even within the lengthy chapter reproduced in any form in no other known source.

An apparently similar idiosyncratic consideration of the square aspect is found in the incomplete horoscopic example cited on p. 36 (not III 6,5–6 as you write in p.36 n. 74 but III [6,5–6], a misplaced duplicate of VIII 9,5–6): the native’s death seems to be attributed to Saturn in Virgo reaching the square-by-degree of Mars in Taurus. This example is from Critodemus, which you do not seem to be aware of, and it is re-dated and analyzed as his fr. 15 in Heinz Peter’s Lizentiatsarbeit (Kritodem. Testimonien- und Fragmentsammlung. Zürich 2001.) Even if you are right in assuming that this calculation was “done by imagining one planet to be at the midheaven and the other, on the ascendant??? (p. 36)—which you do not substantiate with any arguments—it tells nothing about quadrant places.

In relation to this, you even claim (p. 36), “Valens occasionally [emphasis added—LL] uses the term moirikos to denote a square configuration between two planets that is not based on ecliptical degrees at all.??? RQ18 (please answer the question before reading on): How many occurrences does the expression “occasionally??? suggest to you? Actually, this is the only instance, and it is Critodemus’s, not Valens’s; in the possibly cognate passage in II 17,89, the word μοι??ικός moirikos is not used.

There remain only two horoscopic examples in which at least the midheaven-by-degree is—or seems to be—used. One of these is a nativity of clime 6 (VII 6,111–114, cited on p. 27). In this example, a reference is made to the midheaven. You claim that the puzzling gamma in the manuscripts—of which only V is relevant, the other one, S, being its apograph—“might even refer to the degree of the midheaven itself: with early Cancer rising in the sixth clime (around 45° north), this could well be 3° Pisces in the zodiac used by Valens??? (p. 28 ). The problem is that if we follow Valens’s own procedure (I 5) for finding the midheaven in the sixth clime—using the rising times in system B, which are used in the example itself—even for the ascendant as early rising as 1 Cancer, the corresponding midheaven will be already 5 Pisces.

Apart from this, the text, once again, is suspicious: the technique, exemplified with 9 and 8 nativities before and after this one, respectively, do not require the places; only the “years??? of the planets and the rising times of the signs occupied by them are used for some calculations. The syntax is garbled, which is also an alarming sign of possible textual corruption. But even if it is genuine in this form, it provides no information about quadrant places besides saying that Saturn is at the midheaven-by-degree. If we compare this example to the others, it turns out that Saturn does not become effective in the 47th year because it is at the midheaven-by-degree, but because its years and its sign’s years yield 47 in total. You do not mention these circumstances.

AQ17: Do you think that in your analysis of these four passages, you provide your readers with all the necessary context and every possible explanation so that they can form an independent opinion on their value as evidence supporting your thesis? RQ19: Do you think Dr. Gansten provides you with a detailed and technically sensitive analysis to the four passages in question so that you may independently judge their value as evidence supporting his thesis?

12/16 Your supporting evidence for the presence of quadrant places in Valens – V 6,65–73

The only piece of evidence that suggests Valens’s use of quadrant places is his Sonderlehre in V 6,66–69, which you cite and analyze together with the preceding sentence (V 6,65) on pp. 28–31, and its accompanying horoscopic example in V 6,70–73, cited on pp. 31–32. At first glance, it looks a very promising one: sentences like “often two places fall together in one sign??? or “if we examine the places by degree, […] we shall not go wrong??? (p. 29) make clear that Valens is speaking about something different than whole-sign places; so do the upper and lower midheaven being involved in the technique. The horoscopic example seems to confirm this: in the 34th, transmissions to the 10th are active, but the transmissions from the lower midheaven and Moon in Scorpio to Mars in Virgo—to the 9th (!) sign—and from the ascendant and Mars in Virgo to the upper midheaven in Taurus—to the 9th sign again—are said to be such; this is conceivable only if Valens counted quadrant places. So, the case seems to be closed.

There are some suspicious things, though. First, although Valens uses degree precision in identifiable contexts in Books I, III, and VIII—you do not attempt to investigate these contexts, though—he does not do so here. Second, only the places where the upper and lower midheaven-by-degree fall are mentioned. You try to sidestep this unwelcome silence by translating ???μοίως καὶ ???πὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ζῳδίων καὶ πολυαναφό??ων τὸ ὅμοιον νοείσθω, ???πὰν ???ν τῷ ἑξαγώνῳ συνεμπέσῃ τὸ μεσου??άνημα as “[a]nd likewise for the remaining signs; and the same should be conceived for those of long ascension, as the midheaven would [then] fall in sextile [with the ascendant]??? (p. 29), from which you conclude (p. 30) “the phrase ‘likewise for the remaining signs’ does suggest that the same procedure is meant to be employed throughout the horoscopic figure, not for the tenth and fourth places alone.???

The problem is that your translation is imprecise and tendentious, which you can reach (1) by splitting the main clause into two and (2) by interpreting the subordinate clause introduced with ???πάν epan as causal, although it can be only temporal. A more precise translation would be something like “similarly, the same should be conceived for the remaining signs and those of long ascension, when the midheaven coincides with the sextile [with the ascendant].??? The message of this sentence is no more than the instructions must be adapted accordingly if the upper and lower midheaven fall into the 11th and 5th signs, respectively.

The example used to clarify the method is Valens’s favorite example (probably his own nativity), which he already used at the beginning of the chapter (in V 6,25–37 and 48 ), and which he uses for different purposes about 20 times throughout the Anthologies. From I 4,12, 8,13, and 14,2, we know that the Moon was at 7 Scorpion, and while in I 4,14, the ascendant is said to have been around 8 Virgo, in I 21,17, it is stated that it was at 7 Virgo. In turn, the degree of the midheaven is never disclosed; still, we are told in VII 6,135 that the native was born in the seventh clime, which allows us to calculate the degree of the midheaven, which, using Valens’s own method (I 5), yields about 26 Taurus. (If, in light of the uncertainties found in VII 6,135–140, we calculate the midheaven for the lower climes as well, we will find that the lower clime we choose, the higher degree of Taurus will culminate.) In short, as the lower midheaven is around 26 Scorpio, the Moon will be in the 3rd quadrant place, and the example will not work with quadrant places. Consequently, the instructions cannot be interpreted as alluding to quadrant places.

In light of this, Valens’s procedure should be interpreted as follows. If the midheaven-by-degree falls in the 9th sign from the ascendant, the transmissions to both the 9th and 10th must be understood as transmissions from the ascendant to the midheaven and the transmissions to both the 4th and 5th as transmissions from the midheaven to the ascendant. Analogously, those to both the 3rd and 4th and those to both the 10th and 11th are to be considered as transmissions from the ascendant to the lower midheaven and from the lower midheaven to the ascendant, respectively.

In the horoscopic example, he refers to the transmission to the 10th: it is a transmission from the ascendant to the midheaven, involving Mars in the ascendant as well, but it is also a transmission from the lower midheaven to the ascendant. And here comes the surprise: although the Moon is in the 3rd sign—and it would be in the 3rd quadrant place as well if Valens had ever used quadrant places—Valens makes it involved in the transmission to the 10th. He is bound to do so, though, to save the phenomena: as he explicitly says (cited on p. 32) that “other transmissions were in effect at that time but did not indicate the causes??? of the events he recounted, he must come up with a viable explanation. I feel he is a bit tampering with his own rules, just like in I 18 with the calculations, in II 37 and 41 with the Lot of Fortune, and who knows how many times elsewhere. Nevertheless, for the 13 examples upcoming in V 6, he returns to his usual procedure.

AQ18: Do you think you provide your readers with an exhaustive analysis of Valens V 6,65–73 so that they can form an independent opinion on its value as evidence supporting your thesis? RQ20: Do you think Dr. Gansten provides you with an exhaustive analysis of Valens V 6,65–73 so that you may independently judge the value of this passage as evidence supporting his thesis?

13/16 Your treatment of Valens III 2,15–20 – the context

In light of sections 11–12, your statement (p. 9), “[q]uadrant places and angles are […] explicitly used in several sections of the work??? of Valens, does not seem entirely correct: angles calculated by degree are referenced and used in several chapters indeed, but quadrant places, with the possible exception of III 2,15–20, appear nowhere. You devote pp. 9–12 to this passage.

You say Valens’s definition of quadrant places (III 2,15–20) is found in the Anthologies “fairly early on??? (p. 9). RQ21 (please answer the question before reading on): Approximately how many percent of the whole Anthologies does the phrase “fairly early on??? suggest to you? I concede it is a matter of subjective interpretation whether a paragraph found at about 37% of the whole Anthologies is properly called appearing (fairly) early; however, a more significant circumstance, which you disclose only much later, on p. 22, is that this description appears in the context of length-of-life calculations.

Also, whereas you promise on p. 4 that you “have endeavoured to read the texts with careful attention both to context and, where relevant, to sequential structure,??? you still do not consider it relevant to tell your readers that III 2,15–20 is actually a proposed modification to a scheme described in III 2,1–14. Here the first segments of the quadrants are designated “effective degrees??? (χ??ηματιστικαὶ/χ??ηματίζουσαι μοῖ??αι chrēmatistikai/chrēmatizousai moirai) and the remaining two segments “ineffective degrees??? (ἀχ??ημάτιστοι μοῖ??αι achrēmatistoi moirai) without any hint that could be interpreted as if a place division system is introduced.

Your omission of the possibly relevant context allows you to ascribe the modified scheme to Orion, even though the phrase introducing the modification (p. 10), “ut to me it seems??? (ἔδοξε δέ μοι edoxe de moi), is the same formula that Valens uses in variations more than a dozen times to introduce his own opinion and proposals, including his hybrid nocturnal formula for the Lot of Fortune (referred to in section 1 above). In reality, Orion seems to have invented the original scheme of effective/ineffective degrees.

AQ19: Do you think in your treatment of Valens III 2, you pay careful attention to context and sequential structure? RQ22: Do you find these circumstances—the context of length-of-life calculations and the treated passage being a proposed modification to a scheme—relevant to the understanding of Valens’s intentions in III 2?

14/16 Your treatment of Valens III 2,15–20 – your translation and interpretation

In relation to Valens III 2,15–20, which you cite and translate on pp. 10–11, you state (p. 10), “quadrant places […] are referred to using the same standard nomenclature.??? Your translation seems to confirm this. However, there are three issues with this translation, a major and two minor ones.

The minor one is that by translating τὸ δὲ ἕτε??ον μέ??ος τῶν μοι??ῶν κ??ίνειν πάλιν μέσον with an unexplained bracketed addition as “but again to judge the other [two-thirds] (emphasis added—LL) part of the degrees to be middling,??? you generate an unresolved contradiction: if the second and third segments are assumed to be both “middling,??? how can the third segment become “harmful and poor??? already in the next sentence? Instead of addressing this contradiction in any way, you present two more unexplained bracketed additions to your translation of the rest of the sentence, διὰ τὴν ???παναφο??ὰν τοῦ ὡ??οσκόπου καὶ τὴν Θεὰν καὶ τὸ διάμετ??ον τοῦ Θεοῦ, as (emphases added) “being [first] succedent to the ascendant and [then] the Goddess and opposite the God.???

The major issue is precisely your translation of this latter clause. I understand the preposition διὰ dia with the accusative denotes cause, and you also translate such instances accurately as cause in p. 28 n. 53 and on pp. 31–32 and 35. Therefore, the precise translation would be something like “(judge the other part of the degrees to be middling) because of the succedent to the ascendant and the Goddess and the opposite of the God.??? I do not think that “because of??? can be considered an equivalent of “being???: “The sky is dark because of the clouds??? cannot be meaningfully substituted with “The sky is dark being the clouds??? (= The sky is dark because it, the sky, is the clouds). RQ23: Do you find “being??? in the translation an acceptable alternative to “because of??? or another synonymous preposition? I suspect this is a deliberate mistranslation so that you may state (p. 11), “[h]ere we see the opposing third and ninth quadrant places referred to as the Goddess and the God, respectively, and the eleventh quadrant place, following the midheaven, as the Good Daimon.???

The other minor issue is related to the second part of this statement. You translate καθό katho as “whence,??? which is a real alternative, but it may be the marker of not only inference but similarity and extent as well. The text says that the second segment from the midheaven is of the succedent class or rank, katho it was also called Good Daimon by the ancients. The question is what was also called Good Daimon by the ancients: the succedent of the midheaven—the 11th place—or the segment analogous to it? Since the division is explicitly said to have been devised by Orion—and not the “ancients???—the second interpretation is not very plausible; the most straightforward explanation—especially in light of the highly corrupt state of this passage—is that the second segment is middling because it is analogous to the succedent of the midheaven, which was, among others, called Good Daimon by the ancients. AQ20: Do you think your translation is accurate and free of mistranslations, unwarranted insertions, and contradictions?

Actually, I wrote about the context and the problems with the text itself and its interpretations on pp. 3–7 of my essay, including the issues with the second segments and their associations with the Goddess and the Good Daimon (pp. 5 and 7), but apart from approving some of my proposals regarding the text in p. 11 n. 18, you chose not to try and disprove my conclusions; you just ignore them. AQ21: Do you think that by stating (p. 11 n. 18 ), “our differences of interpretation are not contingent on text-critical issues,??? you effectively disprove my interpretations? RQ24: Do you think Dr. Gansten provides you with a reliable and coherent translation of the critical passage of Valens III 2,15–20, which thus enables you to form an independent judgment on Valens’s intentions?


(Just a side note: if you ask me, I find Valens’s reasonings for making the second segments middling rather clumsy, apologetic, and not very convincing. I find the import of the Goddess and the redundant reference to the diameter of the God even bewildering. Still, this is the text we have.)

15/16 Valens’s references to a place division other than by whole signs

As the division introduced in III 2 but then never used—just like the hybrid nocturnal formula introduced in III 11 but then never used—can be barely seen as the introduction of quadrant places (sections 13–14), which are also never used nonetheless (sections 11–12), there remains the question of what we should do with Valens’s recurring references to calculating the places by degree.

In V 6,65, he says (as translated on p. 29), “often two places fall together in one sign, or else an angular position is designated as being cadent; and this happens on account of the ascendant.??? The first part of the sentence, πολλάκις γὰ?? εἰς ἓν ζῴδιον δ??ο τόποι συνεμπίπτουσιν pollakis gar eis hen z??dion duo topoi sunempiptousin, is a virtually verbatim repetition of what he will say in IX 3,23: πολλάκις γὰ?? εἰς ἓν ζῴδιον δ??ο τόποι συνεμπεσόντες pollakis gar eis hen z??dion duo topoi sunempesontes, which you translate (p. 17) as “often two places, falling together in one sign […]??? In this latter place, which may well have been inserted in the original before V 6 (see the issue with “Book IX??? in section 1 above), the context is equal places. The condition (as translated on p. 29) “an angular position is designated as being cadent??? does not exclude the equal-place interpretation anyway. Finally, the ascendant is mentioned, but the midheaven is not; this also suggests that Valens is speaking about equal places. The same applies to IX 12,13–14 (cited on pp. 25–26) and IV 11,14–15 (cited on pp. 32–33), where only the ascendant is mentioned again. AQ22: Do you find a comparison of Valens V 6,65 to IX 3,23 relevant to determining what division he meant here and in his similar passages? RQ25: Do you find a comparison of V 6,65 to IX 3,23 relevant to determining what division Valens meant here and in his similar passages?

In conclusion, Valens does recommend precise calculations by degree, and it would be great if you had investigated in what contexts he does so. But there is also an apparent divergence between his instructions and his practice exemplified by his case nativities: he rarely pays attention to the degrees of the planets, even more rarely to the degrees of the lots—in fact, only if they promise better results—and despite emphasizing the need of calculating the places by degree—apparently, using the equal method—he has not a single horoscopic example in which he does so; even in his elaborate horoscopes, he uses whole-sign places (section 11 above).

16/16 My real concerns with your paper

Finally, I must confess that my main concern with your paper is not that I find all your major conclusions wrong. It is something entirely different.

I believe that the essence of science is the quest for truth; therefore, good scholarly practice is incessantly struggling to get as close to the truth as possible. In historical sciences like the history of astrology, we do good science—science faithful to its essence and not only to its loos—if and only if we examine all available evidence relevant to a matter, analyze it carefully in its contexts, and provide our readers with this evidence and our arguments and conclusions firmly based on it; and we do our best to enable our readers to judge the value of our work independently. We must be even more careful if the subject investigated is a contentious issue or if the target audience includes a readership broader than fellow scholars.

Doing science is a huge responsibility. Our readers will generally assume that we left no stone unturned and presented our case most honestly. Many readers—scholars and non-scholars alike—will take our conclusions for granted without systematically scrutinizing our arguments and conclusions in light of the evidence we offer. Even those who do so—like our reviewers—will not necessarily investigate the whole matter anew, which would require a thorough re-examination and re-assessment of the evidence presented and an extensive search for the evidence still relevant but not presented.

While good science—honest and reliable scholarship—is hard to do, there are a great many ways how bad science—science only in its looks but faithless to the essence of science—can be done: for example, by going into assumptions without actually investigating supporting evidence and counterevidence; using overstatements and understatements when it comes to favored and unfavored evidence, respectively; mistranslating or tendentiously translating source texts; suppressing or ignoring evidence; and so forth. These fraudulent techniques are often impossible to detect precisely because readers only see what the author provides for them, but they cannot see what the author does not want them to see unless they open the black box and do their own investigations. The use of these techniques indicates not only that the author wants to push her or his opinion through whatever it costs but also that she or he respects neither the readers nor science.

Now, what I have found in your paper is the following. Without a proper lexical analysis, you simply postulate that platikos means “rough??? and consequently, you portray whole-sign places as only a rough, approximate, primitive method (section 2). Without doing any investigation, you keep speculating about the calculation methods and place divisions employed in Valens’s basic horoscopes (sections 8–9). “Repeatedly??? and “occasionally??? stand for “once??? (or, at most, “twice???) when it comes to favored evidence (sections 5, 8, and 11), and “sometimes??? and “from time to time??? stand for “frequently??? when it comes to unfavored evidence (section 6). An unlikely and contradictory interpretation of the source is forced, a sentence is split, and a causal clause becomes a participial clause, or a temporal clause becomes a causal clause when these particular translations support your arguments (sections 4, 12, and 14). The existing definitions of the whole-sign places, Valens’s elaborate horoscope disproving your thesis, Orion’s original scheme of the effective/ineffective degrees, which do not serve your purposes, are suppressed or ignored (sections 7, 10, and 13). RQ26: In light of your previous answers and this list, do you find Dr. Gansten’s paper a transparent and honest example of good science?

Based on the evidence collected from your paper, I also have my answer, which extremely disappoints me. I just do not understand why, instead of an exhaustive and objective study of this contentious subject, you have proudly presented this inadequately researched and biased paper. If you—together with others—strongly believe that quadrant methods are superior to whole-sign places, it is perfectly fine. In fact, they were considered precisely so, a further development of the latter, by astrological writers and astrologers of the past as well, and this thesis does not even need extensive arguments. But academic articles are for academic science, not propaganda, and if, in the case of a subject, we cannot separate the person with her or his strong convictions from the scholar, who has to remain as objective as possible, we had better not write academic articles about this subject. AQ23: What do you think about this?

thanks levente laszlo,

i appreciate all the work you've done here and more generally... i with hold comment on all of this, but i appreciate and have read all your state here... i don't know if and when martin will find time to respond, but i am curious on it all.. cheers james

Levente Laszlo wrote:For this discussion, I would like to invite all attentive readers, especially but not exclusively those with a favorable opinion of your paper.

Hi Levente,

I hope you'll allow me to describe myself as an attentive reader, and one with a generally favorable opinion of Martin Ganten's paper. If it's ok, I'll play along and answer the 'reader questions'. But first thank you for taking the time to respond to the paper, and doing so with scholarly disagreement. It's a refreshing change of pace from some of the more toxic and reactionary things seen so frequently online in the last few weeks!

I know you know this, but just to state it clearly, as the persona of 'reader' is likely very broad with various academic or hobbyist viewpoints who may chime in. For my own part, I do not speak any ancient language and consider myself well-read on the various English translations of Hellenistic texts, particularly those released by James Holden, Robert Schmidt and Mark Riley, as well as the Loeb translations of various texts where they apply. I say this because some of your questions touch on subjects which may require better understanding of Greek terms, so my answers should be taken in context. In other words, it's all Greek to me. My opinions then are really only from English texts, English translations, and in some situations some scholarship from French authors which I can mostly muddle my way through.

RQ1: Do you find these circumstances—the poor state of Valens’s text and the issues with his consistency and honesty—relevant when you assess the information given by Valens?

Yes, though I'm not as fully aware of the exact nature of the degradation of various texts and the poor state in which they have been transmitted across history.

My own personal view is that we should exercise great caution when making any strong firm conclusions about what the ancient astrologers 'preferred', for example, or what the 'oldest' method is for precisely this reason. It goes without saying, I hope, that that hasn't stopped anyone.

The issue of preference in particular I find troublesome, and am reminded of Hawkins's Ladder of Inference in which the further we read inference in the text away from simply recording what is there and not there the more we run the risk of projecting assumption or bias into the text. To give an analogy, we might survey some American households and discover how regularly they eat fast food like McDonalds. We can conclude certain numbers about how many households have eaten or eat there regularly. It would be a mistake, however, from such a quantitative survey to conclude something like "The preferred or ideal meal for an average American is a burger from McDonald's". That would be a couple of rungs up the ladder of inference than I would be comfortable with.
On the other hand we might survey a number of Americans on whether their faourite or preffered meal is McDonald's, discover it is not, but nevertheless contrast that with the huge number of Americans who do in fact eat there. What might we conclude about preference? Is preference a qualitative statement therefore, or is it a quantitative one?

I see many of the arguments around the 'preference' of WSH to be of the same ilk. I find that particularly troublesome given that we should be cautious about forming any conclusions about the mindset of the authors outside what they themselves state of their own mindset when it comes to any Hellensitic author.

In that any firm conclusions that Martin Gansten may have made should be taken within that context, I also think all contrary arguments should be equally taken in that context.

You do mention 'integrity' and 'honesty'. I am not familiar with arguments of Valens being deliberately dishonest or question his integrity. I see you have provided a reference to that. I have not read this yet, and I hope it's ok to caveat that my opinion might change with new information (shoudln't need to be said, but just in case).

An important context setter of Gansten's article, as I see it, is the opening paragraph in which he lays the case that a strong view or assumption is already made about the use of house systems in Valens. Presumably those conclusions are made *despite* all the very problems of making any conclusions at all that you rightfully highlight. Here is an important context:

"The import of this consensus is that the horoscopic places were originally identical with the twelve signs of the zodiac – not merely as a matter of simplified practice but conceptually, even at a learned level."


Clearly there is already a consensus formed by both scholars and informed astrologers. If forming consensus is a problem, which I don't necessarily think it is, then it's a problem whether made by Gansten or by others. I do think the consensus that is formed should be a "Work in progress consensus with lots of caveats", and maybe that is what is meant.

RQ2: Do you find knowing the precise meaning of platikos in Valens and Firmicus relevant to the understanding of the intentions of these authors? If you do, do you think that Dr. Gansten presented you with the relevant evidence to justify his choice of translating and interpreting platikos as “rough????

I am not qualified to address the second question about whether I feel that Gansten presented me with relevant evidence in how he translated platikos - I will leave that one to other people who do indeed understand ancient Greek or have more experience with translation.

Do I find platikos relevant to the intention of the authors?
Again this is a tough one because I actually believe that most translation problems involve trying to take a concept that is understandable to one audience, and make it understandable to another. That is not a trivial problem and I am in awe of all who attempt it. In this case we have to make a concept and manner of speech comprehensible to a modern audience, let’s even say a modern english speaking audience, about a concept discussed 2,000 years ago in an ancient language that is known for its ability to convey often difficult philosophical or mathematical concepts that I think it is arguable to suggest English is less well naturally well equipped for. Also sometimes terms, taken literally, may evolve to cover similar concepts. Take the idiom of referring to a woman as a ‘broad’ for example. I feel like language may be highly specific in one context but there’s a certain evolution of the word that gets connoted to other concepts that shouldn’t be conflated. So I just want to acknowledge this is a tough question.

I read carefully what I understand to be your distinction, however, on the english translations you have provided of platikos. My own understanding of the term is largely shaped by other authors who wrote of the term prior to Gansten, for example Schmidt in his “So-called problem of house division??? article and various footnotes from Schmidt’s translations and indeed other translations which sometimes use the term ‘platic’ which I think may at least be similar though may not be the exact same concepts as sometimes those words are used beyond the Hellenistic era (Lilly for example).

I believe the term is used as a form of distinction. We need some way to say that something is calculable by precision to the degree, and something is an approximation or a ‘general’ calculation. If this is incorrect, fair enough. Otherwise I am not sure where your disagreement is.

Let’s say that you’re right that Platikos is never translated as Roughly (I’m not at liberty to say so let’s assume you’re right). I’m not sure where the spirit of the translation is in disagreement with Gansten’s usage of it. If something is defined broadly, or generally what is that meant to distinguish it from do you think? If Gansten translated it as ‘generally’ would you have a problem with this? All I can say is that when I see Gansten say that something was calculated roughly, I don’t read that they were calculated at a manner that was incorrect. But rather it’s a lens which creates distinction with how sharp or precise something is, versus how ‘broad’ or ‘not precise’ something is. For example, I may say, quite roughly, that I am in the UK. Which I am. Or I could be more precise and say London. Or I could be still more precise and give my exact longitude and latitude to several places of precision.

In that kind of contrast, I see the use of Gansten’s “rough??? to be used as a juxtaposition against “precise to the degree???. Do you think that Platikos doesn’t mean in this context “general???? You linked to the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon which I assume is considered an authoritative source. But even it says “broadly speaking???, and I honestly believe that “broadly speaking??? and “roughly speaking??? are synonymous. I see the distinction being basically about location of precision to the degree (moirikos) vs an imprecise broad or general region (platikos). The lexicon you linked to have terms like “in the broad sense??? and “broadly speaking??? so it seems to be, like I’m suggesting here, it can mean more than a measurement of literal spatial metrics of ‘wide’ and ‘broad’ like you may describe a piece of furniture, and also a conceptual idea to suggest something is referred to in a manner that is not meant to be precise but instead convey some meaning without requiring detailed or specific exegesis. For example if I were drawing something, I may first make a rough sketch, which would not be indicative of all the levels of detail that one may expect from a, relatively, more precise oil painting.

RQ3: Is it apparent to you that on pp. 19–20, in the middle of the argumentation about the possible alternative meaning of z??dion, passages using d??dekatēmorion and not z??dion are cited and discussed? If it is, do you find these passages relevant to determining whether z??dion had an alternative meaning?

I find the theory interesting and it’s one I wondered at one point myself, but not reading Hellenistic authors but instead Babylonian scholarship by Francesca Rochberg. In her collection of works, The Path of The Moon, one of the chapters deals with the idea that the translation of ‘zodiacal sign’ in Greek and its corresponding term in Akkadian, in many ways connote different ideas and different viewpoints on the world.

As Rochberg puts it
Chapter 18, In The Path of The Moon, p.368

One can argue that the Babylonian zodiac was indeed a circle, and of course 360o comes to be by definition a circle. But the words that we translate as “zodiacal sign??? in Akkadian and Greek, i.e., lu-maš and zoidion, express two different “things,??? with two entirely different relationships to the cosmos. The difference in conception of celestial positions is important not only for our understanding of Babylonian astronomy on its own terms, but it reminds us that in the history of science there are such examples of changes in ontological assumptions which raise questions about the nature of empiricism and more generally of scientific inquiry and its relation to the “world.???

Now to be clear I’m not suggesting Rochberg is arguing what Gansten is, just the idea occurred to me as well having read this. It opened my mind to the idea that what we imagine as Zoidion may not always mean the same thing. And whilst the Babylonians were not imagining a geometric version of the zodiac in the same way that we do (and likely, broadly speaking, the Greeks). I have no idea if Gansten is correct in his theory here, I think it would take lexicographers and translators more investigation and work to see if this theory holds water. It sort of speaks to the ladder of inference I mentioned already, so I do not know. I do agree with you that “I do not think it can prove or disprove your hypothesis in any ways??? - but then I didn’t read this as meaning to be definitive proof but rather an alternate mode of reading the texts which many have not considered, which, if considered, may provide illumination on the author’s intent. Or not. It’s hard to know. Ladder of inference.

I’m skipping over RQs 5 & 5 as they relate in many ways to the point I made in reply to RQ 3, and honestly I think more knowledge of specific Greek terms would be needed than I possess. To summarise though, it seems one can project different interpretations onto the author and arrive at *different* ways of reading something. Well yes, I agree with that. The question is whether, with all the other supporting evidence, what we think the likely context is of an author’s intention. But that’s perhaps another question so I’ll jump over those for now.

RQ6 (please answer this question before reading on): In light of the phrases highlighted in the quotations from Dr. Gansten—“alternates repeatedly??? and “enough to quote one???—how many occurrences do you expect?

Not sure I fully understand what the question is. Given the emphasis that people have placed on just one instance of Firmicus suggesting a planet can be in the first house and above the horizon meaning de factor that WSH must be employed (in which EH with Ptolemy’s rule is ignored, as well as systems like Vehlow or others are ignored), I do think that it’s the exceptions that help us define the boundaries and make the rule as it were. So you would need or expect at least 1 example. But that doesn’t mean I think a firm conclusion should be drawn based on just one example. We have to take the author in context with the other things he says. Perhaps because of all this attention lately, I recently caught myself saying something before I even recognised I said. I was speaking with a client and said first that their MC is in Virgo, and proceeded to explain something very rough about what that meant, to help provide the gist of where this was going to go because that part of the chart was activated in various ways. I later said something, when referring to a profection (which btw I do by whole sign), I said “Because the midheaven is Virgo, and…???, and I suddenly realised I had referred to a position by whole sign, but in truth when I calculate charts I use degree-based house systems only. But sometimes I’ll say my ascendant, for example “is Scorpio??? and sometimes I’ll say “is in Scorpio???. So I think everything needs to be taken in context, but for a blunt answer to the question, I would expect at least one example of where something alternated.

In answer to RQ7, I have no idea how often the term is used or not used. If what you say is true, then Gansten’s use of “repeatedly??? seems hubristic. And if this is misleading it’s worth making the clarification.

In relation to RQ8, this is again speaking to a degree of expertise I lack, so I don’t want to say much either way as I’m not really qualified to. I think it would be beneficial to explore this more though for people who know more about the issue. I don’t. Personally I didn’t care too much either way about this part of Gansten’s paper, and had no real opinion on it.

(I’ll try to reply to your other questions later as I get time, these replies took longer than I thought they would!)