Skyscript Astrology Forum

Schmidt's knowledge of Greek was mediocre at best, which not infrequently led him to some rather strange interpretations. I'm not talking about his convoluted English here, but about his understanding (or lack of it) of what the text actually says. Being 'merely' an academic may be a drawback, but being not even an academic, or at least lacking proper training, can be more so.

I don't know what makes you say this. I don't speak ancient Greeek, all I can do as a professional astrologer is to compare the translations of the various translators. If Schmidt's knowledge of Greek was mediocre at best, then who are the better translators?

Are you claiming that Robbins or the others translated Ptolemy better than Schmidt? Or that Holden translated Paul of Alexandria better than Schmidt? Or Holden's translation of emperor Hadrian's chart as preserved by Antigonus is better than Schmidt's translation?

As for working with astrologers, Schmidt seems largely to have been interested in demonstrating that astrologers from Late Antiquity onwards had been getting The Original System wrong, so I'm not sure how much weight that argument carries.

I too disagree with Schmidt about this. In fact, Ancient Astrology progressed as time went on. However, given that we are discussing the quality of Schmidt's translations, I am not sure how much weight this argument of yours carries here.

Zagata wrote:Are you claiming that Robbins or the others translated Ptolemy better than Schmidt?

Robbins's translation has its own weaknesses, but on the whole, yes. I don't know which others you have in mind.

Or that Holden translated Paul of Alexandria better than Schmidt?

I don't remember seeing a Schmidt translation of that text, but yes, almost certainly. Holden had a better grasp of both Greek and astrology. He also wrote clear, comprehensible English. Greenbaum's translation of Paul is also very good, and more academically rigorous than Holden's, although she does employ some 'Schmidtisms' that I personally find jarring.

Or Holden's translation of emperor Hadrian's chart as preserved by Antigonus is better than Schmidt's translation?

Again, I don't think I've seen Schmidt's take on that [later note: or Holden's], but Stephan Heilen's German translation is very good (ditto for his edition and extensive notes).

I too disagree with Schmidt about this. In fact, Ancient Astrology progressed as time went on. However, given that we are discussing the quality of Schmidt's translations, I am not sure how much weight this argument of yours carries here.

You were the one to bring up Schmidt's association with astrologers as an argument in favour of his translations. I presumed you meant that he had let that association guide his understanding, which I don't think was the case: on the contrary, he seems to have thought that astrologers in general had been wrong for most of the history of astrology. But perhaps I misunderstood your original intention?

To add to your interesting discussion, I have a critical edition of the Tetrabiblos from Nicolas Bourdin from the 17th century in French. Notes added by René Alleau.

Some historical background in the Latin world.

Many greek astrologers were introduced in Occident by the Islamic world. Thus, the first translations were initially translated from arabic.
1) "Rerum lesure in quibus est prognosticabilis scientiae stellarum perfection" by Plato de Tivoli (1138) from an arabic version of Ibrihim ibn as-Salt, corrected by Thåbit (...-906) and/or Hunayn ibn Ishåq.
2) A translation from 1206 ?
3) An anonymous translation "Luxta providam philosophorum assertionem"
4) Another anonymous translation of 1234 'Accidentia futurorum de significatione super illud quod proventorum'
5) A translation from Aegidius de Tebaldis 'Res o Mizori quibus prognosticationes accepte de astronomia' (1256) apparently from the arabic version of the commentary of Ali b. Ridwån (...-1068)
6) A translation quoted by Henri Bates in 1281. "Hiis qui instituant per astronomiam pronosticum finem o Sire"

For a list of the above versions cf F.J. Carmody 'Arabic Astronomical and Astrological sciences in latin translation, University of California Press, 1956.
----------
For the printed versions

1) Liber Quadripartiti Ptolemaei id est Quatuor tractatuum cum Centiloquium ejusdem et commento Halii, Venetiis, by Erhardam Ratdolt, (1484)
This edition served as a model for several other versions in Venise (1493, 1519) Paris (1519). Same version used by N. Pruckner in 'Firmicus Maternus Astronomican libri VIII...) and reedited in various locations in 1541, 1551 and 1557)
2) A translation in 1548 by Antonio Gogaua
This one seems to have been the first complete latin translation from the original in greek. A. Gogaua copies the version of Camerarius for the first 2 books and gives his own version in the last 2 books.
3) A translation 'ex conversione' by Ivonani Pontani in 1553 and reprinted anonymously in Prague in 1610.
4) Another work 'Aphorismes d'Astrologie tirés de Ptolémée, Hermès, Cardan, Manfredus and many others' translated in French by A.C. Orvus, with a preface by Lazure Meysonnier, Lyon 1657.
-----------
Academic French versions

The Bibliothèque Nationale has 2 translations from the original versions translated from arabic.
1) One with Haly ben Rudian commentaries and translation of G. Oresme. (1348)
2) One with Haly ben Rudian commentaries and latin translation of Giles Thebaldes from Lombart.

Hope this will help to add some filiation in the historical versions.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Robbins's translations has its own weaknesses, but on the whole, yes. I don't know which others you have in mind.

I disagree here about Robbins. There is a reason that Chris Brennan for example quotes from Schmidt more than from any other translator of the Tetrabiblos.

As for others, I meant other translators that have translated what Schmidt has, so we can compare.

Again, I don't think I've seen Schmidt's take on that [later note: or Holden's], but Stephan Heilen's German translation is very good (ditto for his edition and extensive notes).

I have and am telling you that Schmidt's is definitely better than Holden's. Speaking of Heilen, I would like to ask you how he translates the term that Antigonus gives in regards to the configuration the malefics have to the Sun in Hadrian's nativity.

I mean the sentence: "And the cause of him having many adversaries and conspiracies resulted from....." as translated by Holden. So, how does Heilen translate the astrological term that finishes this sentence?

The reason I am asking is because the way Holden translated it is inaccurate. We don't have such a term in Hellenistic Astrology. The way Schmidt translated it is accurate, although he did 10+ years after Holden. So, let's compare.

You were the one to bring up Schmidt's association with astrologers as an argument in favour of his translations. I presumed you meant that he had let that association guide his understanding, which I don't think was the case: on the contrary, he seems to have thought that astrologers in general had been wrong for most of the history of astrology. But perhaps I misunderstood your original intention?

Fair enough. It was a mutual misunderstanding.


Thank you for the thorough information, Ouranos.

The only translation that I have found a good match for Schmidt's Tetrabiblos one is Pascal Charvet's French translation from ancient Greek which is also translated in my native Bulgarian language.

The only translation that I have found a good match for Schmidt's Tetrabiblos one is Pascal Charvet's French translation from ancient Greek which is also translated in my native Bulgarian language.

Zagata

In the Tetrabiblos from Bourdin, René Alleau says that the first version translated from greek is the one by Joachim Camerarius in Nuremberg (1535) addendum, the latin translation of J. Pontanus.
Nicolas Bourdin says in his preface having read more than 40 different sources but Alleau mentions that it shows the influence of Mélanchon and Robbins.

My version was published in 1974 and your version by Charvet is more recent.
Thanks for the information.
Here is an interview with Charvet, first published in Astrologos n° 4, april 2001
https://www.astroariana.com/Une-nouvell ... ition.html

Zagata wrote:I disagree here about Robbins. There is a reason that Chris Brennan for example quotes from Schmidt more than from any other translator of the Tetrabiblos.

What Chris Brennan may or may not prefer is not an argument with me. There are places where Robbins's translation is off, but there is no question that his knowledge of Greek was vastly superior to Schmidt's. Schmidt's writings are full of footnotes about Greek phrases being obscure or ambiguous, and also of far-reaching theoretical arguments resting on very minor points of Greek grammar or word choice. 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. I have seen the same phenomenon many times in my own (Sanskrit) students.

As for others, I meant other translators that have translated what Schmidt has, so we can compare.

Yes, but whose (modern) translation of the Tetrabiblos did you have in mind?

I have and am telling you that Schmidt's is definitely better than Holden's.

I don't have either, so I can't compare, but I very much doubt it. The translations I have seen by Holden demonstrate a better overall grasp of both Greek and English, as well as of astrology, compared to Schmidt. Which is not to say that there may not be individual instances where Schmidt gets something right that Holden got wrong, of course. That sort of thing can always happen. I am talking about the general quality of translation.

Speaking of Heilen, I would like to ask you how he translates the term that Antigonus gives in regards to the configuration the malefics have to the Sun in Hadrian's nativity.

I mean the sentence: "And the cause of him having many adversaries and conspiracies resulted from....." as translated by Holden. So, how does Heilen translate the astrological term that finishes this sentence?

I think you are referring to sentence 34: Der Grund dafür, dass er mit vielen Widersachern und Verschwörern zu tun hatte, erwuchs daraus, dass die beiden Luminare, die die Macht verleihen, von den zwei Übeltätern rings eingeschlossen werden, wobei Saturn in morgendlicher Sichbarkeitsphase und Speerträgerposition steht, Mars hingegen in abendlicher.

Fair enough. It was a mutual misunderstanding.

So what was your point about Schmidt and astrologers, exactly?

Martin Gansten wrote:

What Chris Brennan may or may not prefer is not an argument with me. There are places where Robbins's translation is off, but there is no question that his knowledge of Greek was vastly superior to Schmidt's. Schmidt's writings are full of footnotes about Greek phrases being obscure or ambiguous, and also of far-reaching theoretical arguments resting on very minor points of Greek grammar or word choice. 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. I have seen the same phenomenon many times in my own (Sanskrit) students.

It may not be an argument with you, but it is for me. Likewise with Ben Dykes quoting Schmidt's translation over the others.

I love the footnotes actually. Ancient Greek is very ambiguous and I appreciate it when the translator explains the nuances of his/her word selection. I can't know whether Robbins' overall command of Greek was better than the translation. I can only judge by the translation.

I don't have either, so I can't compare, but I very much doubt it. The translations I have seen by Holden demonstrate a better overall grasp of both Greek and English, as well as of astrology, compared to Schmidt. Which is not to say that there may not be individual instances where Schmidt gets something right that Holden got wrong, of course. That sort of thing can always happen. I am talking about the general quality of translation.

Actually Ben Dykes said that Holden's translation of Firmicus has some inaccuracies and he plans on doing another. Likewise Brennan modifying Holden's translations in his book.

I think you are referring to sentence 34: Der Grund dafür, dass er mit vielen Widersachern und Verschwörern zu tun hatte, erwuchs daraus, dass die beiden Luminare, die die Macht verleihen, von den zwei Übeltätern rings eingeschlossen werden, wobei Saturn in morgendlicher Sichbarkeitsphase und Speerträgerposition steht, Mars hingegen in abendlicher.

Yes, that is the sentence, thanks. Well done to Heilen. This is the concept of enclosure. In this particular chart, it is identical to what is called "hemmed in" in Indian Astrology. It is the only such case in the Western tradition that I know of that is explicitly used in the delineation.

Holden translates the word as "blockading", which is kind of accurate, but not as good as Schmidt's translation. Moreover, Brennan and Demetra George also use "enclosure", not Holden's term blockading.

So what was your point about Schmidt and astrologers, exactly?

My point is that having good astrological knowledge or better - being an astrologer - gives an edge to such a translator. And Schmidt was such.

Ouranos,

Thank you very much for the link with the interview.

I really appreciate how Pascal Charvet, a senior professor of classics, described and defended Ptolemy (and Kepler).

Zagata wrote:It may not be an argument with you, but it is for me.

Your prerogative, of course, but as others may not agree with your choice of authorities, it is hardly compelling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I love the footnotes actually. Ancient Greek is very ambiguous and I appreciate it when the translator explains the nuances of his/her word selection.

To be clear, I don't mind the fact that there are footnotes, but their content often indicates Schmidt's limitations. I don't believe Greek is inherently more ambiguous than any other language; it's a matter of your level of proficiency. Personally, I'm less confident with Greek than with Latin, and less confident with Latin than with Sanskrit (in which I'm fluent), but that doesn't mean I believe Greek to be inherently the most difficult of the three: it just reflects the extent to which I have worked with these languages.

I can't know whether Robbins' overall command of Greek was better than the translation. I can only judge by the translation.

I thought you said you don't know Greek? In which case you cannot, of course, judge by the translation.

Actually Ben Dykes said that Holden's translation of Firmicus has some inaccuracies and he plans on doing another. Likewise Brennan modifying Holden's translations in his book.

Yes, there are occasional inaccuracies. The same is true of Ben's own translations, as I'm sure he would admit. I have sometimes corrected what I have later discovered to be inaccuracies in my own published translations. This is just a fact of life: we all make mistakes from time to time. That doesn't change the fact that Holden and Ben Dykes both had/have a good working knowledge of Latin, whereas Schmidt was clearly struggling with Greek.

As for modifying translations, that can be done for many reasons, including a wish to keep technical terminology uniform. It doesn't necessarily imply that the original translation was wrong, even in the opinion of the person modifying it. (I myself have modified translations by Robbins, Holden, Riley, Dykes, etc.)

Holden translates the word as "blockading", which is kind of accurate, but not as good as Schmidt's translation. Moreover, Brennan and Demetra George also use "enclosure", not Holden's term blockading.

Don't you find it slightly ridiculous to criticize Holden for not following a convention established (probably long after Holden first made his translation) by Schmidt, and then taken over by others? Surely the central question is whether the translation correctly reflects the original word, which in this case is ???μπε??ιέχεσθαι in the passive, translated by the LSJ dictionary as to be shut in, beleaguered. I actually think 'blockade' (OED: to seal off (a place, esp. a port) as an act of war) conveys this better than 'enclose'. If I were to criticize either or both translations, it would rather be on the grounds of unnecessarily introducing new terminology when we do have an accepted English term (besiege) that has been in use for centuries. But on that score, Schmidt is more guilty than anyone else.

My point is that having good astrological knowledge or better - being an astrologer - gives an edge to such a translator. And Schmidt was such.

I don't think he was, and as I said, he seems to have had little regard for astrology as it actually existed for more than fifteen centuries. But we are not likely ever to agree on this.

Martin Gansten wrote:

Your prerogative, of course, but as others may not agree with your choice of authorities, it is hardly compelling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It appears that you have axe to grind with Schmidt. I showed you how other astrologers, Ben Dykes being one the most prolific astrological translators, prefer Schmidt's translation over Robbins and others and quote from it. Yet you are still coming up with some counter arguments. This is an astrological forum first and foremost, not an academic one. Looking at Robbins' translation, there are hardly any footnotes. How is this helpful to an astrologer? Because he did not translate the text for astrologers, nor do the majority of other academics. Yet when I open Pascal Charvet's translation of Ptolemy, it is litered with helpful footnotes - not just about the translation, but he also clarifies certain concepts.

I am not saying it is the job of the the translator to add footnotes. I am saying this is an ancient text and astrologers in our era need context, need some explanations. Remember, the reason why we, astrologers, read the ancient texts is to use and apply the concepts and techniques to charts, NOT for historical purposes. That is one reason why Project Hindsight was established in the first place. I am not going to go chapter by chapter and compare Schmidt's and Robbins' translations. Schmidt has pointed out where Robbins got it inaccurate and/or wrong and explained why.

I thought you said you don't know Greek? In which case you cannot, of course, judge by the translation.

No, I don't know Greek, but I can judge based on the copious footnotes of Schmidt or other translators who have the astrologers more as priority and not the academic community. Do we really need to remind ourselves how the academics view Astrology and how biased they are in this?

Don't you find it slightly ridiculous to criticize Holden for not following a convention established (probably long after Holden first made his translation) by Schmidt, and then taken over by others? Surely the central question is whether the translation correctly reflects the original word, which in this case is ???μπε??ιέχεσθαι in the passive, translated by the LSJ dictionary as to be shut in, beleaguered. I actually think 'blockade' (OED: to seal off (a place, esp. a port) as an act of war) conveys this better than 'enclose'. If I were to criticize either or both translations, it would rather be on the grounds of unnecessarily introducing new terminology when we do have an accepted English term (besiege) that has been in use for centuries. But on that score, Schmidt is more guilty than anyone else.

Not at all. Your arguments are much more of an academic and not as an astrologer, and you are proving my point here. The astrological problem with "besiegement" is that, as others have explained, it does not make sense to call it such in the case of benefics. I dare you, show me an actual historical horoscope where the astrologer used the term besiegement when benefics are doing it.

True, it was about 10 years later when Schmidt translated the same delineation of Hadrian's horoscope. However, the term blockading does not speak anything to an astrologer. I am not saying the term enclosure meant anything to Western astrologers, because that term was unknown, at least in terms of actual delineations of nativities. What I am saying is Holden left no footnote there. And yet in Indian Astrology they have the concept of "hemmed in", which in this case coincides because it is by body, not by ray. If I were a classical translator, I would have put more effort in explaining this concept, or at least show what the original word is and that it can be translated in 2-3 other ways.

Schmidt did this, not just in this case, but in the majority of the cases. This is one of his major advantages and what sets him apart from the academic translators. And again, Demetra George, who has some knowledge of ancient Greek, also follows Schmidt's translation of enclosure. So does Chris Brennan. And they too are professional astrologers. And they too have Holden's translation and yet choose Schmidt's rendering of the term.

Zagata wrote:It appears that you have axe to grind with Schmidt.

No, I never met him or had anything to do with him personally. I do dislike his writings on several counts: his interpretations are often wrong, his English renderings are extremely hard to read (to the point of requiring a second translation from Schmidtese), and his far-reaching theories are based on very little, often just over-interpretation of minor points of grammar or stylistic variation.

I showed you how other astrologers, Ben Dykes being one the most prolific astrological translators, prefer Schmidt's translation over Robbins and others and quote from it. Yet you are still coming up with some counter arguments.

I am not sure what being prolific has to do with anything, but with all due respect for Ben (whom I happen to know slightly), I see no reason to defer to his or anyone's opinion on Greek translations. I'd rather look at the text myself. I generally find arguments from authority to have a pernicious influence on a discussion.

(Just as a marginal note, the translations from the Greek that Ben has published were done by Eduardo Gramaglia, not by himself.)

This is an astrological forum first and foremost, not an academic one.

I think that's a false dichotomy. We are talking about ancient texts and what they mean; that doesn't change depending on whether you call yourself an academic or an astrologer (both of which I am).

Looking at Robbins' translation, there are hardly any footnotes. How is this helpful to an astrologer? Because he did not translate the text for astrologers, nor do the majority of other academics. Yet when I open Pascal Charvet's translation of Ptolemy, it is litered with helpful footnotes - not just about the translation, but he also clarifies certain concepts.

Fair enough: Robbins probably didn't do his translation with practising astrologers in mind. You would like more explanatory notes, and I can sympathize with that (as long as the notes are not misleading). But that is still a different question from whether or not Robbins understood what the text meant and conveyed it in intelligible English, which I think he mostly did.

Schmidt has pointed out where Robbins got it inaccurate and/or wrong and explained why.

But Schmidt's own opinions on such matters were not infrequently wrong, which is precisely my point.

Do we really need to remind ourselves how the academics view Astrology and how biased they are in this?

Just as a matter of interest, how many professional academics working on the history of astrology do you know? I know quite a few, some of whom are astrologers themselves, but even the ones who aren't tend often to be much more sympathetic than you seem to think. It's not all black and white.

I dare you, show me an actual historical horoscope where the astrologer used the term besiegement when benefics are doing it.

There's no need for dares: if there is such an example in a text and people have translated it differently, let's compare those translations.

However, the term blockading does not speak anything to an astrologer. I am not saying the term enclosure meant anything to Western astrologers

No, that's the point: neither is a well-known term. You first claimed that Holden's translation was less accurate (which, as I said, isn't true); now it seems that your objection is that he didn't provide a note. Again, I can sympathize, but it's a different question. Incidentally, as you seem to read German, you should try to get Heilen's translation: approximately 900 pages of it are notes!

And yet in Indian Astrology they have the concept of "hemmed in"

The actual Sanskrit term is kartarī-yoga, 'scissor configuration'. It's more often mentioned with reference to the malefics, but not exclusively so.

I appreciate Robert Schmidt's work, but it is appropriate to quote his own words from 2016 (The So-Called 'Problem of House Division'):

My own early translations in the ‘90’s were also provisional, and they were done relatively quickly as part of an overarching plan. It seemed to me that nobody had any business publishing a definitive translation of any of these difficult texts without having gone through the entire corpus of surviving works. Project Hindsight was a project, meaning that we intended that there would be an initial phase in which provisional translations of the entire corpus would be published, and then a final phase in which definitive translations could be issued. My early efforts at translation contain many inadequacies. When translating rapidly, it is easy to get an inflection wrong or even overlook a word here and there. In the interest of getting the translation into the hands of our subscribers as soon as possible, I did not always consult the Greek grammar on some of the finer points of the syntax. 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. I was constantly experimenting with translations of the technical terminology, so there are many inconsistencies from volume to volume. My translations of some of these terms were mere place-holders, because I was having a hard time matching the semantic field of the Greek word with something from a similar semantic field in English, something I try to do whenever possible.

Unfortunately, his untimely passing did not allow for the completion and publication of his new translations.