Hi all,
I do not know if my post is in the right place here, perhaps I should have used the book session, I am not sure, Deb

I have two different translations of the Tetrabiblos, Ashmand and Robbins. I know Deb prefers Robbins, but there are others who prefer the Ashmand translation, like Dave Roel of Astroamerica. I know there is a 3rd one, the Hindsight translation. Are you familiar with that translation and would you recommand it? My problem with the differences between the translations is that I am in no position to judge which one is "good"or "bad". How do you handle and judge these differences?
I would love to read your opinion!
regards,
Tienka

You may be aware of this already, but Ashmand's translation is not really based on the original text of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos, but on Proclus' paraphrase. Which is not to say that it is not worth reading.

If you can't read a text in the original, it is often a good idea to compare several translations. Personally I wouldn't recommend the Hindsight translation as a stand-alone text, but as a complement to Robbins it may be useful. And if you find discrepancies that puzzle you, well -- there is always Skyscript!

Tienka Atema wrote:Hi all,
I do not know if my post is in the right place here, perhaps I should have used the book session, I am not sure, Deb

I have two different translations of the Tetrabiblos, Ashmand and Robbins. I know Deb prefers Robbins, but there are others who prefer the Ashmand translation, like Dave Roel of Astroamerica. I know there is a 3rd one, the Hindsight translation. Are you familiar with that translation and would you recommand it? My problem with the differences between the translations is that I am in no position to judge which one is "good"or "bad". How do you handle and judge these differences?
I would love to read your opinion!
regards,
Tienka

The only way you are going to know for sure is if you take the time to learn classical Greek. I have the Hindsight translations that Hand, Dr. Zoller and Schmidt did and because I'm only a novice at Greek I can only say that these are more interesting to me. I have heard that Schmidt is an "amateur" and that Robbins, Pingree, etc are pro's, but having read several versions of these texts, I can say that I find Schmidt's translations the most interesting and I'm much more prone to be put to sleep by the other texts. The problem with the translations done by Pingree, Robbins and Neugeubauer is that they weren't practicing astrologers. The same was the problem with Schmidt in the early days, which is why Hand and Zoller were involved in Project Hindsight. Schmidt has since then done hundreds of readings so this is not an issue any more. Schmidt told me that the translations done by these scholars had mistakes in them and they would sometimes confuse such things as "trigon" with "trine", not making a distinction between the aspect and the essential dignity. When you are not a practicing astrologer mistakes like these are much more easy to make.

The problem that you will hear about Schmidt's translations is that he's making things up and is stating more than what can be supported by the texts. Robbins, Pingree and Neugeubauer do exactly the opposite and say very little (which is why I find their texts rather dry).

Schmidt has his own problems though, shooting himself in the foot in terms of his business affairs, but his problems are not academic at all, IMO. He is one of the best minds in the field of astrology, valedictorian of his high school, won the National Science Foundation award when he was 16 (only about 1 person in each state gets this annually) and was given a full scholarship to MIT. Schmidt is also trained in the classics and is a Physicist and Mathematician and worked on the mathematical treatises of Francois Viete (founder of modern algebra) prior to Project Hindsight. Not exactly what qualifies for "amateur" IMO. I doubt that there are many astrologers who can claim that level of excellence academically. However, you should take promises of publications with a grain of salt (until you actually see it in print). I spent 7 years waiting for Antiochus to be finished.

So, in Italy we are lucky because we have two translations, one from Simonetta Feraboli, Professor of Greek at Genova University and expert of ancient stellar catalogues, and another from Giuseppe Bezza, who teaches in Bologna university, who surely knows astrology and practises it.

margherita

Yes, Martin, I discovered Skyscript Thanks Curt, but Greek...that is one step too far, I'm afraid! My Delphic is working great,, by the way!
And I can't read Italain either, helas, Margherita, but what did you find in comparing them with Robbins? Are there statements that are puzzling?
And thank you, Tom, I will have a look at the references you gave.
I ordered the hindsight translation, so I will come back in the (near, I hope) future on this topic.
regards,
Tienka

Best German translation of Tetrabiblos is considered the translation made by Johann Wilhelm Pfaff(1774-1835) in 1822/1823:

"Astrologisches Taschenbuch f?r das Jahr 1822", Palm Verlag Erlangen, 1822 -first part of Tetrabiblos
Astrologisches Taschenbuch f?r das Jahr 1823, Palm Verlag Erlangen, 1823 -second part of Tetrabiblos

In 1803 he became professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at the University Dorpat (now-University of Tartu-Estonia).

There is a later reprint of this book made by Dr. Hubert Korsch in Dusseldorf,1928.

there is also a reprint of the reprint! But also out of print!

http://screencast.com/t/ODlkODM5NjU

Wolfgang