zoidsoft wrote:

DrStarman wrote:From page 81:

from the Lot of Fortune, and if benefics are in aspect, there will be inheritances, gifts, or a cause of some
good. If the fatal Places transmit to Places which precede the angles or vice-versa, the native will hear of
someone?s death while abroad or as a result of travel. (The four Places which precede the angles serve as
Places of Foreigners and of Slaves.) Likewise in any nativity Gemini and Sagittarius have the same general
effect as the Place of Slaves because of their zodiacal position: when Cancer is in the Ascendant, the Place of
Slaves falls in these signs. So even when a native has the Place of Slaves in another sign, /172P/ but has
malefics in these <Gemini>, he will experience disturbances and injuries from slaves, even
penalties, death, and flight, especially if Saturn is in these Places. If benefics are in these Places, the native
will be thought well of <by> and will receive benefits from them, and he himself will be a benefactor
of slaves, or will indeed raise some, treating them as his children.

This is very similar to what Dutch Astrologer Wim Van Dam does, by considering Sun in H9 as if it were Sun in Sagitarius, and 0 of aries in say,11th house as meaning the rising sign is Aquarius

http://www.astrosoftware.com/WimMundane.htm

Valens is probably making a reference to the Thema Mundi here where Cancer rises. In the chart of the world, Sagittarius is the 6th house so is traditionally associated with slaves. Schmidt suggests that if one doesn't know what to do with some piece of the astrological puzzle, try to fit it into the chart of the Thema Mundi. He argues that this chart is the template for understanding Hellenistic astrology.

Valens understands all the cadent places to have to do with being away from home because the cadent sign is "turned away" from an angle.

Thanks Zoidsoft
So if my Sun is Gemini it will fall in house 12?

DrStarman wrote:

zoidsoft wrote:

DrStarman wrote:From page 81:

from the Lot of Fortune, and if benefics are in aspect, there will be inheritances, gifts, or a cause of some
good. If the fatal Places transmit to Places which precede the angles or vice-versa, the native will hear of
someone?s death while abroad or as a result of travel. (The four Places which precede the angles serve as
Places of Foreigners and of Slaves.) Likewise in any nativity Gemini and Sagittarius have the same general
effect as the Place of Slaves because of their zodiacal position: when Cancer is in the Ascendant, the Place of
Slaves falls in these signs. So even when a native has the Place of Slaves in another sign, /172P/ but has
malefics in these <Gemini>, he will experience disturbances and injuries from slaves, even
penalties, death, and flight, especially if Saturn is in these Places. If benefics are in these Places, the native
will be thought well of <by> and will receive benefits from them, and he himself will be a benefactor
of slaves, or will indeed raise some, treating them as his children.

This is very similar to what Dutch Astrologer Wim Van Dam does, by considering Sun in H9 as if it were Sun in Sagitarius, and 0 of aries in say,11th house as meaning the rising sign is Aquarius

http://www.astrosoftware.com/WimMundane.htm

Valens is probably making a reference to the Thema Mundi here where Cancer rises. In the chart of the world, Sagittarius is the 6th house so is traditionally associated with slaves. Schmidt suggests that if one doesn't know what to do with some piece of the astrological puzzle, try to fit it into the chart of the Thema Mundi. He argues that this chart is the template for understanding Hellenistic astrology.

Valens understands all the cadent places to have to do with being away from home because the cadent sign is "turned away" from an angle.

Thanks Zoidsoft
So if my Sun is Gemini it will fall in house 12?

In the chart of the Thema Mundi, yes. More important where it falls in your chart.

In his latest newsletter Dave Roell of Astroamerica.com says he plans to publish this Valens translation at about 500 pages. Dave does a beautiful job of publishing classic texts (such as Lilly's Christian Astrology), but (as of now) this text will be pricey: about US $60.

The PDF version online is somewhat difficult to read, even printed (smaller font printed with long paragraphs). So we can have the online copy or an expensive copy in book form. Dave always adds extras to his classics. For this edition he plans tables, charts, a glossary and index. An artist with layout, Dave's publications are always very attractive and readable. No doubt the book will eventually be available through Amazon at a discount. http://www.astroamerica.com/astroamericanewsletter.pdf

Terrie

DrStarman wrote:

zoidsoft wrote:I noticed in another location of that translation that Valens, pg 38 (3rd paragraph) states the algorithm for finding the lot in the usual manner...

He also seems to use Whole sign houses, with MC-IC often in 9th or 11th houses. He comments that MC not only rules career and status but foreign affairs when placed in 9th

Valens uses Porphyry. At one point he gives instructions, I forget where.

Terrie wrote:In his latest newsletter Dave Roell of Astroamerica.com says he plans to publish this Valens translation at about 500 pages. Dave does a beautiful job of publishing classic texts (such as Lilly's Christian Astrology), but (as of now) this text will be pricey: about US $60.

The PDF version online is somewhat difficult to read, even printed (smaller font printed with long paragraphs). So we can have the online copy or an expensive copy in book form. Dave always adds extras to his classics. For this edition he plans tables, charts, a glossary and index. An artist with layout, Dave's publications are always very attractive and readable. No doubt the book will eventually be available through Amazon at a discount. http://www.astroamerica.com/astroamericanewsletter.pdf

Terrie

Hello Terrie, and everyone at Skyscript -

I am presently setting the text, am working on Book 5. The $60 price was based on a 500 page finished book, but Riley's revision of January 2011, resulted in 100-ish fewer pages. Those of you who have the December version, please note a 40 page duplication at the end of Book 1. There seems to have been other such problems. Fewer pages = lower price, but since Mr. Riley will get his share (he's earned it!), the price cannot go lower than $40 - but I expect Amazon will discount.

I have set the text on a largish page and am scribbling marginal notations, partly to myself, partly to help readers. I confess there are massive areas that I don't understand at all.

With Skyscript's help, there is the possibility of making this a critical edition. Here is what I propose:

I will post a finished pdf of each book, one at a time. This will be a proof of my actual edition, as it stands as of the moment.

I am hoping there will be people at Skyscript who will read the text and make critical notes on it, either posting directly on Skyscript - so that everyone may see them - or sent privately to me.

I want the entire text to be perfectly clear to any reasonably trained astrologer. The discussion about the Part of Fortune takes place in a context where Valens puts Fortune up against Daimon. What is Daimon? The inverse of Fortune! Fortune by night is Daimon by day.

Valens has all manner of counts. From here to there, counting this much or that much. Here is an example, from Book 5:

"Next the numbers 21 and 19 give information by their being in opposition: if we subtract 12 from 19, 7 is left; and if we multiply 3 times 7, we find 21. For the number 27, the <signs> 3 and 9 signs apart will be influential. If the year 24 is found to have a transmission, I will use it because of the factor 3. The stars which are 13, 25, or 37 signs apart stop at the same sign. If a star is in that sign, it will be transmitting to the <same> sign. If, when the star is there, other stars are in the next sign in order of the signs, it will transmit to them instead. Using the previous nativity as an example: in the 13th and 25th years, Mars transmits to Jupiter and Jupiter to the Moon. If no stars are found in the next sign, the stars transmit the year to themselves."

The chart under discussion has produced the numbers 21 & 29 by some mysterious process. He then process these numbers & uses them to produce counts of 13, 25 & 37. In this he reminds me of Wynn's No. 14 rule, which Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson picked up. "Transmission" I believe is reception. The "previous nativity" might be February 8, 120, first hour of night, location is presumably Alexandria - but I haven't worked it out.

I believe there are enough knowledgeable people, at Skyscript, and elsewhere, that, with your help, we can make a definitive edition of Valens, one that will stand the test of time, one that will still be in use in a thousand years. I don't care so much for myself, I can publish anything & would be happy to publish a rump text, just so we can have a line in the sand, something to work with. But I believe we can do so much more.

We can, we should, we will take ownership of our own past. David Pingree patched the book together, Mark Riley has translated it, it is up to us to present it to the world.

If Skyscript makes this a group effort, then on the title page, under Mark Riley's name as translator, I would be most pleased to put, "Critical notes/scholia by the contributors of Skyscript". And I would be most happy to identify individual contributors & their individual contributions, by name (or alias).

Did you ever want to be immortal? Name in history & all that? English has replaced Greek and Latin. Definitive English editions will, more or less, supplant the original. Valens is nearly 1900 years old already. It will still be prized in a thousand years.

Here is the link to Book 1: http://www.astroamerica.com/valensbook1.pdf
In the First Book, among other things, are formulas to calculate planetary positions from given starting dates. These dates need to be reduced to current notation, and the process set in plain English, with worked out examples. Sepharial knew these same routines.

Gnomon is part of a sundial. The shadow cast by the sun was how the ascendant was calculated, according to the klima, which is your latitude. Ptolemaic latitude, aka klima (in practice, seven zones), was based on the longest day of the year (summer solstice) and given in hours and minutes, which were themselves based on time as measured on the equinoxes, as otherwise "hours" were based on sunrise and sunset of the day in question. Sound like a different world? It was.

Anyone interested?

PS: Terrie's link to my newsletter needs to be updated to http://www.astroamerica.com/newsletters ... uary22.pdf
I regret that it is unlikely the book will be done by spring. Autumn, anyone?

Hi Dave

Not to be a wet blanket, but can't help but feeling that inviting open suggestions for annotations is begging for trouble. This needs someone who really knows the text very well indeed and who could commit to acting as an editor/annotator of the controversial points, and who could point out the controversies that do exist. That would require quite a heavy investment of thought and time, which is why Mark Riley hasn't already done it himself.

In any case this could never be a critical edition, given Mark Riley's statement that he is giving up the text for what it is. Having a known expert involved willing to be accountable for any additions could give it more weight however; whereas inviting contibutions from anyone would make the publication less worthy in academic terms.

Just a thought, based on my awareness that certain passages have generated huge discussion in this forum, many of which have to be left open as currently unable to be satisfactorily resolved.

Regards
Deb

Deb wrote:Hi Dave

Not to be a wet blanket, but can't help but feeling that inviting open suggestions for annotations is begging for trouble. This needs someone who really knows the text very well indeed and who could commit to acting as an editor/annotator of the controversial points, and who could point out the controversies that do exist. That would require quite a heavy investment of thought and time, which is why Mark Riley hasn't already done it himself.

In any case this could never be a critical edition, given Mark Riley's statement that he is giving up the text for what it is. Having a known expert involved willing to be accountable for any additions could give it more weight however; whereas inviting contibutions from anyone would make the publication less worthy in academic terms.

Just a thought, based on my awareness that certain passages have generated huge discussion in this forum, many of which have to be left open as currently unable to be satisfactorily resolved.

Regards
Deb

Hello Deb,

My thanks for your note. All that you say is true, but contributions have to go through me, and I can be fussy. For example, I worked hard on Blagrave and am reasonably happy that I solved a number of puzzles in that book. You have a number of contributors who genuinely impress me (yourself included), and I'm not easily impressed.

Comments are limited by the quality of the underlying translation, of course, but again, I am trying to establish a line in the sand. It might be that some contributors know Greek & have access to Pingree's critical edition & so can make educated guesses as to exactly what the translation should be. Nothing prevents a marginal note from suggesting an alternative wording.

Will it take time? Of course. I've set aside the next several months, at least.

But these are moot points, as, so far, I've had no takers. Regret that I don't follow Skyscript closely & so am not aware how much has already been thrashed out. I should use the search function and review some of those threads.

I am now working through Book 7. I am getting the impression that Valens may be a lot more simple than we think, but I am certain to be wrong. I am particularly interested in this "mystical" nonsense, as it seems to be the old alchemical "grudging vs: generous". It also has relevance to prose vs: poetry, and that Valens was either from a poor, uneducated background, or deliberately adopted a phony "poor man" identity in order to hide himself. In other words, Valens is a Cockney in the middle of high class London towne. Was that real, or not? Increasingly I think it was a pose, and that Valens, like Gurdjieff, writes to obscure, not reveal.

Hi Deb,

I took the time to survey prior discussion of Valens here on Skyscript. The search said 669 items on 45 pages of search, which was a lot, but after 10 pages it stopped, so maybe that was all there was (?).

So far as I could see, the discussion hasn't gotten beyond lots & book 2. I wanted to bore in on his counts. Valens is largely about counts, about signs of long & short ascension, about antiscia drawn from the current new moon, klima, etc. When you get all the books in front of you, it's a revelation.

Cheers to all -

Dave of Maryland wrote:
Here is an example, from Book 5:

"Next the numbers 21 and 19 give information by their being in opposition: if we subtract 12 from 19, 7 is left; and if we multiply 3 times 7, we find 21. For the number 27, the <signs> 3 and 9 signs apart will be influential. If the year 24 is found to have a transmission, I will use it because of the factor 3. The stars which are 13, 25, or 37 signs apart stop at the same sign. If a star is in that sign, it will be transmitting to the <same> sign. If, when the star is there, other stars are in the next sign in order of the signs, it will transmit to them instead. Using the previous nativity as an example: in the 13th and 25th years, Mars transmits to Jupiter and Jupiter to the Moon. If no stars are found in the next sign, the stars transmit the year to themselves."

These are all from profections, Dave. The 1st year (year of birth), 13th yr (12 years old), 25th, 37th, etc.

I'm not going to put words in Deb's mouth, but I think she's hinting at the problem, which is that the Riley is a 1st draft of a translation, and thus is riddled with errors. Curtis has pointed out a glaring one. Then there is the matter of that Riley is simply not interested in the astrology; his focus was on the math, and there is not any meaningful astrological commentary.

The idea that some group consensus is going to solve all the problems with this, is not credible. This is a large and unwieldy text, and it's not going to succumb to the peaks & prods of people on the Internet doing little bits in their spare time.

GR wrote:

These are all from profections, Dave. The 1st year (year of birth), 13th yr (12 years old), 25th, 37th, etc.

I'm not going to put words in Deb's mouth, but I think she's hinting at the problem, which is that the Riley is a 1st draft of a translation, and thus is riddled with errors. Curtis has pointed out a glaring one. Then there is the matter of that Riley is simply not interested in the astrology; his focus was on the math, and there is not any meaningful astrological commentary.

The idea that some group consensus is going to solve all the problems with this, is not credible. This is a large and unwieldy text, and it's not going to succumb to the peaks & prods of people on the Internet doing little bits in their spare time.

Yes, I know they're profections. I edited Lilly's Book 3, where you will find all 12 of the Merchant's profections. I was surprised, and a little suspicious, to see the same thing in Valens. Elsewhere Valens assigns numbers to signs, numbers to planets - in several layers - and then finds sets of planets & signs that add up to the Number of the Year. And month and week and day. Rather like a collection of different dasa systems, Vimshottari combined with Yogini along with Jaimini & maybe a bit of Krishnamurti subs thrown in as well. Valens is a wild stew. What will the year or month or day be like? It will be like all the possible combinations of all the various elements! All these ingredients need to be organized and compiled in the back, where they can be seen and grasped at once.

A lot of Valens IS mathematics, and studying Riley's text I have been impressed with his skills in untangling the math. Which is essential if you want to get anywhere. That he isn't an astrologer is a Very Good Thing. That he doesn't try to "second guess" the text is critical. We need it to be unvarnished. With some exceptions, astrologers are not well-enough read to tackle Valens. Which means there will be a lot of wrong guesses.

For example, here on Skyscript I've read that "Valens uses equal houses." No, he doesn't. He uses Porphyry, and was doing so centuries before Porphyry got his name on them. Valens would have used something like Placidus, but that his system of notation - Roman numbers - were inadequate for the task. Porphyry was the best he could do, and in Klima 6 (as far north as Lyon, France), equal does not work. For unknown reasons modern Hellenists seem to be convinced otherwise. Is this because of Dorotheus? Let's look quickly at Dorotheus & Valens:

There are a few charts in Dorotheus, but individual positions in them are wrong, as has long been known. Dorotheus gives no instructions for calculating planetary positions, did you ever wonder why?

In Valens there are lots & lots of charts & so far as I am aware, every one of them is exact. In Valens are explicit instructions for calculation. Which modern astrologers, which is to say, since before Lilly, know nothing about. Moderns get their positions from printed ephemerides. Which makes us moderns like Dorotheus. NOT like Valens.

So where did Dorotheus get his calculations? Most likely, from a clockwork mechanism. One was found a century ago & given the name Antikythera. Astrologers should rise up as a single body and CLAIM THAT MECHANISM as our own. Because it is. And then be ashamed that, still today, we can do no better.

So let's compare Dorotheus to Valens. Valens is a master, in full command of the subject. He proves it, right down to the details. Dorotheus is rich - or has a rich uncle - and lazy or maybe just not as bright. He has a machine. He hasn't checked if his charts are accurate because he DOES NOT KNOW HOW.

As publishing an English translation of Valens is an historic event, it would be rude of me not to put the matter in front of the leading Astrological board. Which is Skyscript. It is for us - not Mark Riley - to decipher the text. As soon as your child learns to walk, the next thing to do is to toilet-train it. Riley has translated the book, so why do we hesitate ?

Valens as a whole can be solved, and the first big whack, a collection of rights & wrongs, will be a guide. I was hoping someone would decipher the rules for calculation, which start on pg. 15 of the Riley's download (pg. 28 of mine), but instead I have puzzled them out. Saturn, for example, starts with the full years since Augustus & is counted from Cancer. Is that clear? No? To be precise, that's August 19, 14 AD. On the day Augustus died, Saturn was, in fact, at 29 & change of Gemini, by modern calculations.

My offer - to make available the complete text as I set it - stands. I didn't expect a group response. I was hoping for one or two interested individuals. So far I've got two people saying this isn't such a hot idea. Well, I asked.

David R. Roell

Before you damn the Greeks to mathematical mediocrity, you might want to take a look at this.

It's my understanding that, like the Hebrews, they had the Phoenician alphabet at their disposal.

Hi Olivia,

Anyone thinking that the Greeks (or Bablyonians, or Egyptians) were mathematical mediocrities is simply talking out of his hat, among other places.