I agree that this passage is apposite, Petr, but in a way that Schmidt didn't intend. I'm thinking particularly about this sentence:

Some errors were due to an insufficient understanding of the doctrines presented, which are far from being simplistic, and I was not yet familiar with the special compositional devices being employed to encrypt the text.

This closely matches what I said before:

Martin Gansten wrote:This is typical of beginning students: one has trouble understanding something and/or has to expend a great deal of work interpreting it, so one projects those difficulties on to the author, imagining him composing his text almost in code.

There is no reason to believe that any or all of the Greek authors were 'encrypting' their texts.

https://youtu.be/yMPuROQMBuw?t=1393

No, I don't know any academics, Martin. However, the point is their view was hardcore against Astrology at the time they did the translations and critical editions. Hence one of the reasons for Project Hindsight. Yes, more open-minded academics have entered the scene in the past few decades. I have read some of their articles and own some of their books.

I don't see a point in continuing this discussion with you, Martin, as we are viewing things from a different perspective - astrologer vs academic. You can read the ancient Greek, astrologers cannnot.

To practising astrologers: if you choose to rely only on the Riley's translation of Valens, I mean Book chapters 29 and 30 on the subject of being away from home, you will have an inaccurate translation on a number of occasions. This will lead to compounding errors before you even attempt to practice the method. Again, in general, Riley's translation is much easier to read and more pleasant than Schmidt's. However, when we talk about some key astrological concepts, Riley's translation is off in certain cases. And while this could be overcome in other areas of Valens, this is not possible in chapters 29-30. The reason is because while Valens exemplifies the methods he used in many cases, he does not do so for the topic of being abroad and emigration (not travel). That is why I wrote 9900 words of explanation of the text and cross-checking of the 4 translations of Valens to see which one appears most accurate, which I then confirmed by exemplifying the method on 50 natal charts of real people.

Thanks for the discussion, Martin, as well as for letting me know about Heilen's 900 page footnotes.

Thank you for the quote from Schmidt, Petr.

Zagata wrote:I don't see a point in continuing this discussion with you, Martin, as we are viewing things from a different perspective - astrologer vs academic. You can read the ancient Greek, astrologers cannnot.

Funny, I thought I was a practising astrologer:
https://astrology.martingansten.com/
Also, I distinctly recall you claiming that Robert Schmidt was an astrologer who could read Greek.

You are probably right that there is no point in continuing this conversation, but for the record, I object to your attempt to decide who is or isn't an astrologer (or whose perspective is that of an astrologer), particularly if your criterion for inclusion in that group is going to be ignorance of classical languages or not being an academic. There are quite a few practising astrologers apart from myself who would have to be excluded!

So easy to overlook the great contribution Jane has made in offering this free and easy to access, hyperlinked, illustrated edition of Riley's translation- especially since she also made the latex files available for others to adapt her work.

I have turned this into a flip-book format and will find somewhere more prominent to feature it on the site - so that I (for one) don't struggle to find it again as this forum post slips down the list.

Here is a link to the flip-book (until I can create the page)

*The PDF can be downloaded from the little 'down arrow' that appears in the top left corner of the flip-book

I've had a look at your new formatting and work. It's so clear! Thanks so much!

Martin Gansten wrote:

Zagata wrote:I don't see a point in continuing this discussion with you, Martin, as we are viewing things from a different perspective - astrologer vs academic. You can read the ancient Greek, astrologers cannnot.

Funny, I thought I was a practising astrologer:
https://astrology.martingansten.com/
Also, I distinctly recall you claiming that Robert Schmidt was an astrologer who could read Greek.

You are probably right that there is no point in continuing this conversation, but for the record, I object to your attempt to decide who is or isn't an astrologer (or whose perspective is that of an astrologer), particularly if your criterion for inclusion in that group is going to be ignorance of classical languages or not being an academic. There are quite a few practising astrologers apart from myself who would have to be excluded!

Dear Martin,

he doesn't know any academic - Well You are an Assistant Professor in The University of Lund in Sweden and on this forum You are a moderator.

So he should concede to know at least one.
I have my opinion on the discourse tactics of Z.

Der Hexenhammer läßt grüßen = The Hexenhammer sends its regards

Deb wrote:So easy to overlook the great contribution Jane has made in offering this free and easy to access, hyperlinked, illustrated edition of Riley's translation- especially since she also made the latex files available for others to adapt her work.

I have turned this into a flip-book format and will find somewhere more prominent to feature it on the site - so that I (for one) don't struggle to find it again as this forum post slips down the list.

Just saw this Deb, thanks for making the text easier to access for everyone. Hope they find it useful.