Martin Gansten wrote: If we take a piece of elegant, literate Greek/Sanskrit/etc and make it into clumsy, unintelligible English (with half the important terms left untranslated) in the name of literalism, are we being true to the author's intentions?

Actually, if the author's original intentions were to obfuscate the text, which Schmidt argues, I think, well in regards to Antiochus, then he must be doing a bang up job.

Martin Gansten wrote: No idea -- but if it was, I'll bet you he didn't say it in English!

Next you're going to tell me he didn't write the musical. lol

No, of course that ther is no problem or real confusion.
But also there is no point of doing it besides showing ones cleverness.
But if it is an aesthetic problem, then we are at that same point as ever in astrology... everyone do as they please

So, in going back and adopting a disassociative stance from previous learning

I do agree strongly with this in some contexts. For instance, when I have to teach concepts like "motivation" you usually have to use a dissociative stance, and for this you have to use different words, or students will always return to previous mind models.

But I do this when I am trying to teach new models and concepts. Not because I am trying to teach a word, "just because". My point is, in what ways changing Aries for the Ram really changes anyones conception about it? if it doesn?t, it is just a matter of power: a word that helps sepparates the ones who are "in" and "out". A gatekeeper that helps to identify the ones who are in the "club".

But I would dare to say that this has nothing to do with translation aesthethics...

Well that would depend, I would think, on how much you?ve seen.

If you have examples, I would love to hear them.

Deb wrote sometime ago a comment on this problem:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3348

yuzuru wrote:No, of course that ther is no problem or real confusion.
But also there is no point of doing it besides showing ones cleverness.
But if it is an aesthetic problem, then we are at that same point as ever in astrology... everyone do as they please

Maybe we can fault him for being clever, but then again, if I was translating tons of stuff in a dead language for no real compensation, I?d do whatever the heck I?d feel like with no remorse, but that?s just me. Let?s blame Mars.

As for aesthetics, only if we put aesthetics on the same level as technique and first principles. I really don?t feel comfortable doing that, as it makes it seem that all astrology is, is divination, and that can be an extremely deconstructing. Horary, maybe; but again, another subject. ?

yuzuru wrote: But I do this when I am trying to teach new models and concepts.

Schmidt would argue that some of the core concepts have shifted some much over time that the Greek originals would essentially be new concepts, but then it shouldn?t be a surprise to anyone that he feels strongly that the Hellenistic texts are the origin for whatever else followed in Western astrology.

I don?t think things like the Ram for Aries, or the Goat Horned One for Capricorn are going to catch on (though I still think the Goat Horned One just sounds cool }:^D), so that will probably be more of an personal identifier. A good word for what you?re saying here is shibboleth.

As for examples, one that I?m sure Schmidt has done publicly is the idea that the oikodespotes, or domicile lord (we could probably get away with steward), is not so much the ?ruler?, but the host of the sign, and that he or she provides the goods that the planets in the domiciles act upon. An example of this would be Saturn in a sign of Mars signifying the death of siblings, now there are caveats to this, I forget off the top of my head if either Mars or Saturn requires some more qualifications, like either being in or testifying to the 3rd sign, or being the lord of the appropriate Lot. Now I don?t feel as if I have a complete grasp of the Greek stuff to go on and give the kind of example I?d like to give, so you?ll have to excuse me for that.

GR wrote:As for examples, one that I?m sure Schmidt has done publicly is the idea that the oikodespotes, or domicile lord (we could probably get away with steward), is not so much the ?ruler?, but the host of the sign, and that he or she provides the goods that the planets in the domiciles act upon.

There is a technical facility in this forum that allows me to alter the spelling of selected words. It has certain defaults set to prevent the nasty expletives, but other than that, it?s never been used. I must admit I have sometimes felt tempted to set it so that all words like oikodespotes get automatically translated into common old astro-terminology. It?s not a new idea to use the word ?lord? instead of a ?ruler?, but no matter what arguments are made, the word ?oikodespotes? does not express the idea of a host and provider more elegantly than ? well, than any other word that I can possibly think of.

Oh if only I could bring myself to wave that magic wand and have all references to z?idion instantly changed to ?sign? ? imagine, not only on this site, but for the benefit of all astrologers, everywhere. All astrologers united by the understanding that an astrological sign is not just a 30? arc of dead, meaningless space, but that it also acts as a sort of ? sign. Not just the boring old road-sign sort of sign, either, but the living breathing symbolic sort of sign (the kind that fills the soul with the sort of inspiration, understanding and enchantment that immediately gets destroyed upon sight of the words like oikodespotes and z?idion).

But I will say no more because, Gabe, you are personally adding grace to what I see as very clunky arguments. I have friends that use these words. They are trying to stop using them, and I am trying to become more tolerant and let them use them if they really have to.

I disagree that using these Greek terms somehow takes the life out of astrology, and I think I can get away with speaking for Bob Schmidt on this one too. In fact, looking at how the old Hellenistic astrologers did and said things, in their own words, can help bring astrology to life in a manner different then, at least, what often passes for astrology nowadays; but I?d agree that it helps to make sense to people, and using common terms can facilitate that. In a very true level, the signs are the temples where the planets receive oracles that then the astrologer through the use of his art and the grace of the immortals may read them.

At this point I feel I?m going to have to stand up for poor lil? Oiko Here?s the entry out of the LSJ

oikodespot-?s , ou, ho,
A. master or steward of a house, Alex.225, Ev.Matt.10.25, PMeyer 24.2 (vi A. D.) : metaph., of God, Arr.Epict.3.22.4 (oikias d. was preferred by the Atticists, as in Pl.Lg.954b : so oik?n despotai X.Mem. 2.1.32 , cf. Phryn.348).
2. native ruler, opp. foreign emperor, J.Ap.2.11.
II. Astrol., of a planet, owner of a domicile or otherwise predominant, Ptol.Tetr.97, Porph. ap. Iamb.Myst.9.5, Heph. Astr.1.13, PSI3.158.80 (iii A. D.).

Now, there is the problem that the word oikodespotes gets overused in these texts, employed in designating the domicile lord, one of the chart lords, which I would call the Steward of the Chart, I think the Light of the sect of the chart, and often in other circumstances. So I can see that some wholesale embrace of the term is probably not the best idea.