Skyscript Astrology Forum

Martin Gansten wrote: There is a fairly recent (2004) German translation by Knobloch and Sch?nberger, though.

This sounds interesting, Martin, though my German is not really up to scratch presently. It is always fascinating to compare translations (even into different languages) for the semantic and technical conceptions of the translator that they reveal. I have taken the liberty of ordering a copy of the German translation, which at 38 Euros is pretty inexpensive as these things go, presuming that it covers all nine books; and no doubt it will cost a lot more once stocks sell out.

Wolfgang Hubner is due to release a new translation of Manilius into German in the not-too-distant future, I believe - not that this thread concerns Manilius, but on the subject of German translations of ancient astrological texts, the foregoing observation appears at least tangentially relevant.

On the Kroll vs. Pingree issue with regard to the Greek editions of Vettius Valens, I have only seen the Pingree edition so far. It was still just in print and in stock at the publisher a couple of years ago when I started buying up astrological Teubners, but seems to have become very much more expensive on the second-hand market since then. The Kroll edition, surprisingly to me at first, is relatively abundant and cheap second-hand, though perhaps this is as a direct result of scholars preferring Pingree's more up-to-date scholarship and introduction.

The reverse was true of the older and more recent Teubner editions of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos (under the title 'Apotelesmatica') when I last checked: no copies of the earlier edition, while the more recent edition circa 1998 edited by Hubner was abundant.

I tend to favour the later editions of Teubners on the assumption that the original texts will have been better collated and the commentaries expanded, and forego the earlier ones as unnecessary extravagances; but I feel that where an earlier edition comes complete with unique commentary it may be worth investigating even if the text itself is inferior, and Manilius, with its long history of different scholarly editions, is perhaps a particular case in point here, with earlier editions by Scaliger, Bentley and Housman all being noted for their different commentaries. But I digress....

Best wishes,

Philip

Hello Deb and other friends:

For a coincidence I arrived at you message after having wrote to Mark Rilley with my congratulations for his work on Valens. I was searching for confirmations in relation to an article I am writing on a technique of Valens of which I never heard about. Riley points that Liber Hermetis has a similar technique, and I went to the text doing a research... but it is not the same thing. Now I know that no astrologer have explained that specific technique, and it is for that kind of things that I find Valens an eternal surprise.
I didn't ask exactly as he knew that it was the real chart of Valens , but it seems probable, because there are some characteristics in the chart that correspond with known fact of his story: for instance his mother's died early and the hypothetical chart has the Moon in Scorpio in the house 4 observed by Saturn in Cancer.. Other times Valens puts the Moon in the third house, but it is the same chart that he uses with whole signs or dynamical houses. Besides this, it is a chart that doesn't possess any planet with dignity: the Sun is in detriment, in the sixth house, that Zoller attributes to skills, but anyway it is a weak chart respecting fame. We know that the Sun below the horizon cuts the fame in a half, unless it is in the fifth house. Valens is almost totally unknown comparing to Ptolemy and he wrote a beautiful work that according to estimates (for the dates of the contained charts) took long 20 years to be written. Also the fact that presumably she died with 55 years old, more or less fits, because using the method of Ascension Arcs, between Mars in the ASC and Saturn has 60 degrees approximately, but we don't know exactly the longitude of Mars and that of the ASC, the same for Saturn.
It is a night chart and the lords of the triplicity are Mars for the first part of the life (ASC and regent of the house of the Moon), Venus for second part (it improves that part when Valens went to Egypt and wrote the Anthologiae). Venus is in the 5th house in its joy.
The Moon is in the third house (it could be in joy, but for whole signs it is in the fourth house). Now, the third part of his life practically didn't exist. The first two parts were more operative, when at 35 he traveled to Egypt, in the triplicity of Venus ruling the 9th.
Riley translated the whole work but it is not satisfied because there are problems, they lack pieces, etc: I offered to buy books 8 and 9, not translated by the PH, but he doesn't have trust to pass them ahead. He doesn't seem to be an astrologer, since he doesn't know about the translation done by the PH: he imagined it was a translation into the Modern Greek. Maybe for that he doesn't worry in giving a date of birth: he will not use it for anything.

have a good Sunday all of you!

Clelia Romano

Hi Celia

Thanks for the contribution to the discussion. I find your comments very interesting. (They would have been especially interesting if you had got, and then translated books 8 & 9 ! )

Valens is almost totally unknown comparing to Ptolemy and he wrote a beautiful work that according to estimates (for the dates of the contained charts) took long 20 years to be written.

I have a certain reservation on this point. I think Valens did achieve fame, because he is referred to by many other astrologers. I also don't think he can be directly compared with Ptolemy, because Ptolemy was the leading astronomical authority of his day, and one of the most important authorities on all forms of natural science. Hence Ptolemy's writings directly impacted upon commonly agreed notions of science, so it is only natural that his work received more attention throughout history. And I don't think we can assume that it took Valens 20 long years to write his book because the charts span 20 years. Most of us who have 20+ years of experience have chart examples that span that period. If I was to write a book on horary it will include demonstration charts that go back to the late 1980s. This shows I have 20 years experience in that subject, but not that I would take 20 years to put the book together.

I've always considered it likely that much of that work would have been translated or reproduced from older texts, copied out and demonstrated by up to date chart examples. That seems to have been the case for most of the ancient texts we possess. I'm not sure how that fits with the theory that the speculated chart is that of the author of the work though, so I am very open to the discussion.

Best regards
Deb

Yes, but I wonder if this is more than a difference of approach. It could be a difference of tradition.

There is an intriguing comment in the Michigan Papyrus 1 - which has been translated on this link http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/i/image/i ... D1I-IV.TIF

• The centers are called horoscope, zenith, occident, nadir. The second from the horoscope is Hope; the third Friends and Goddess; the fourth Foundation, Base, Resource; the fifth Good Fortune; the sixth Daemonie; the seventh Sign of Death; the eighth Inactive; the Ninth Defection and Region of Strange Land; the tenth Accomplishment; the eleventh Good Daemon; [the twelfth Evil Daemon]. Now according to Asclepius the subjects of the inquiry are thus arranged; from the horoscope questions of length of life are to be sought; from the second in the upward direction, livelihood; from the third, brothers; from the fourth, parents; from the fifth, children; from the sixth, injury or suffering; from the seventh, wife; from the eighth, fortune and death that puts a bound to all, according to the lords of these houses. We, however, seek from the horoscope length of life and peculiarities of soul, from the Sun father, patrimony, leaders, and the senses; from the Moon mother, maternal endowment, and body; from Saturn the confirmation of every written instrument, evil or good, and benefit from inheritances from elders and from the death of outsiders, and crops from the earth; from Jupiter offices, preisthoods, knowledge, children, wealth; from Mars, brothers, and arts of violence carried out by means of fire and iron. Injury comes from Mars, Saturn and the horoscope; by day . . . from Saturn to Mars . . .
  (Col. X)
  [- - -] . . . [we inquire about] death from the descending sign, and call it the Theme of Death; and in all the book on planetary effects . . .

The approach of Valens seems to fit with that ascribed to Asclepius; the approach of Ptolemy seems to fit that ascribed to whoever 'we' may be. I wonder if there was some fundamental difference between, say, an established Greek tradition and an established Egyptian tradition, that at that time had not yet fully melded? I really don't know. This might help to explain why we have sources like Dorotheus and Valens that line up neatly with no mention of Ptolemy; and then another set of ancient texts that seem to be fully in line with ptolemy. But let me emphasis again - I'm probing a question, not suggesting an answer.

thanks for the link to the Michigan Papyrus Deb, I had seen it mentioned in several articles.

By the way I often wonder if the links between Ptolemy, Valens and with older (common?) Babylonian sources etc. would have been more clear if the works in that library in Alexandria had all been preserved.

Eddy wrote:thanks for the link to the Michigan Papyrus Deb, I had seen it mentioned in several articles.

By the way I often wonder if the links between Ptolemy, Valens and with older (common?) Babylonian sources etc. would have been more clear if the works in that library in Alexandria had all been preserved.

I'm becoming mad trying to remember where I read but when Ptolemy tells "the ancient astrologers" this it should be read Petosiris.

And when Proclus writes about Trutine - he says "as Petosiris states, and Ptolemy confirms".

I will try to find the article....
Margherita

Gjiada wrote: trying to remember where I read but when Ptolemy tells "the ancient astrologers" this it should be read Petosiris.

Hi Margherita, I don't know if anything of the following is related to what you are trying to find, but perhaps one of them gives an 'aha' moment and you might remember it again. I wish you good luck.



*************


A footnote in:

Theoretical and Practical Astrology: Ptolemy and His Colleagues
Author(s): Mark Riley
Source: Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-), Vol. 117, (1987), pp. 235-256
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/283969

( also available here: http://www.csus.edu/indiv/r/rileymt/PDF ... etical.pdf )

mentions this:
"40) To Nechepso, allegedly a pharaoh of the XXVI Dynasty, and to his priestly associate
Petosiris, were attributed a handbook of astrology compiled in Egypt in the first or second
century BC. This handbook, the source of all astrological wisdom, is quoted by Valens, Firmicius,
and Hephaistion, and is mentioned by Ptolemy (3.11.1). Fragments in E. Riess, "Nechepsonis et
Petosiridis Fragmenta Magica," Philologus Supplementband 6 (1892)."

*********
something else in jstor

VIE DE PETOSIRIS GRAND PRETRE DE THOTH A HER.MOPOLIS-LA-GRANDE par Emile
Suys. Avec une Preface de Jean Capart, Bruxelles, Edition de la Fondation
Egyptologique Reine Elisabeth, 1927, pp. 158.
This book is a popular description of the tomb of an Egyptian high priest and...

*******
or

Antiochus and Rhetorius
Author(s): David Pingree
Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 72, No. 3 (Jul., 1977), pp. 203-223
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/268313

perhaps this citation reminds of something:
"Porphyrius, however, refers to
Antiochus by name only once, in chapter 38 (cf. Epitome I. 20), where he
reports that the latter described two methods of determining the position
of the Moon at a native's conception: his own method and that of Petosiris.
The same two methods ascribed to the same two authorities but in reverse
order (this must be the original order, as Antiochus would have given Petosiris'
opinion before his own) are quoted by Hephaestio of Thebes (II. 1.
2-6), who calls Antiochus an Athenian."

***************

A New Astrological Treatise: Michigan Papyrus No. 1
Author(s): Frank Egleston Robbins
Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Jan., 1927), pp. 1-45
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/263268


"Asclepius appears in
the same cycle of mystical Egyptian writings as Petosiris and Nechepso
(see Cumont, op. cit., p. 68, with n. 1); he is sometimes the pupil
of Hermes, and again the instructor of favored human beings (e.g.,
CCAG, VIII, 3, p. 136, 31 ff.; VIII, 4, p. 257). There is also another
explicit record of the connection between Asclepius and the doctrine
of the eight regions; Vettius Valens, p. 334, 18 (Kroll), "

***********

http://sacred-texts.com/gno/th1/th108.htm

**********

Eddy wrote: Hi Margherita, I don't know if anything of the following is related to what you are trying to find, but perhaps one of them gives an 'aha' moment and you might remember it again. I wish you good luck.

It should be something in Italian, I believe, but I'm not sure.
Obviously I have Proclus text where the author mentions in the same line Petosiris and Ptolemy, but I cannot remember where I read this thing about Ptolemy and ancient astrologers.

In every case in the preface to the comment of Tetrabiblos, Bezza says that Ptolemy never renounced to the elders' tradition.

Thanks for so many links in every case

Margherita

Hi All:

Deb wrote:

And I don't think we can assume that it took Valens 20 long years to write his book because the charts span 20 years. Most of us who have 20+ years of experience have chart examples that span that period. If I was to write a book on horary it will include demonstration charts that go back to the late 1980s. This shows I have 20 years experience in that subject, but not that I would take 20 years to put the book together.

You certainly have a point here. But little evidences when summed up can lead to a strong one;-) Of course it is always possible to argue :-)

Quoting Riley:

?The many horoscopes cited as examples in the text, which make Valens' work so valuable to the historian of astrology, provide further information for dating. The dates of death (or of some other significant crisis) of the persons whose horoscopes are given allow us to give a terminus post quern for the chapters containing those horoscopes. ( statistics are cited by Neugebauer in Greek Horoscopes) The stress is mine.
Appendix A lists the chapters which cite horoscopes containing the date of birth and of death (or crisis) which is under investigation; horoscopes for adults which give only birthdates are useless for determining a precise terminus post quern. From this information the various sections of the Anthologiae can be dated: ( the stress is mine)
Books I-II - The early 150's or before. (15 is a later insertion.)
Book III 1-13 -early 150's.
Book III 14-16 - 169/170 (an insertion).
Book IV 1-10 - 156; an introduction the the theory of chronocrators and critical times.
Book lV 1-30 - slightly later than IV 1-10; a different system of chronocrators.
Book V - 158; a continuation of the discussion of chronocrators and critical times.
Book VI - A late book (170?) with the majority of the extended similes and poetic quotations found in the Anthologiae.?


Scholars seem to have evidences that Valens?s Anthologiae was written in a period of 20 years.

On Steven?s point ,I would like to underline that it was not my intention to compare Ptolemy?s and Valens?s methods but compare the fame of both in the astrological field.

The Anthologiae, like most astrological texts, was used and consulted by later astrologers. Pingree has emphasized the importance of this fact for establishing the history of our present text.

Quoting Mr. Riley again, and sorry if you have the original to read;-)

The underline is always mine.

? As our study of the chronology of the Anthologiae has shown, the text, with the exception of Book DC, is in its approximate order of composition, but with many short insertions and glosses. It also has several sections appended in antiquity, with horoscopes dating to 431 (365.3K; 350.9P) and 419 (365.29K; 351.4P). The fifth-century version of the Anthologiae was the archetype of all later Greek mss, and it was used by Rhetorius and the Byzantine astrologers of the tenth through the twelfth centuries, who tried to make sense of Valens' rules and procedures.
Valens' posthumous fame was great. To him was attributed the horoscope for the city of Constantinople. He also had quite a vogue among Arab astrologers. Mash'allah (died ca. 815 AD) knew ten books of his (CCAGI 82). The Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadim reports the titles of nine books of "Walis." This Walis has long been identified with Vettius Valens, and the supposition has been that his Anthologiae were translated into Arabic, possibly from an intermediate Persian translation, with additional stories about the author and additional works ascribed to him. ?????????????????????????????The renaissance scholar Claude Saumaise (Salmasius) rewrote much of the Anthologiae in his De annis climactericis (1648), but the first modem edition of the complete text was by W. Kroll (1908), the second by D. Pingree (1986). An edition with French translation and extensive commentary on Book I has been published by Bara. This edition presents the best introduction to the topics, terminology, and methods of the astrology of Book I; unfortunately Valens' main interest, length of life calculations, is not discussed in that book. All modern editions are based on very few manuscripts: Vaticanus graecus 191 (V, written ca. 1300) and its copy, Arch. Selden B. 19 (S, ca. 1520), in the Bodleian Library. supplies the text for the quires lost from V after S was copied. Another manuscript, Marcianus graecus 314 (M, ca. 1300) supplies much of the text for Anthologiae I and II.
Pingree's text differs relatively little from Kroll's: both are editions of the Byzantine Greek manuscripts only. As mentioned in footnote 3 above, there seems to be another tradition for Valens' work, the traces of which can be found in the Fihrist, in the Arab compilers al-Qasrani
and al-Saymari, and in several late Greek texts. This Eastern tradition of the Anthologiae is akin to the mass of Arabic texts derived from Dorotheus, Rhetorius, and Antiochus, and must be discussed in conjunction with them."


As we see in the present historical survey, the whole text is little known, some authors being just devoted to study part of him, so that there is still a lot of gold to be sought from Valens?s work. The fact of part of the work is fragmentary doesn't justify that some techniques have not been incorporate. The Medieval astrology was vastly inspired by the work of Masha?allah, to do a parallel, although only few fragments of his original work have been preserved.
I don?t know the reason why Valens was not studied as much as Masha?allah or Ptolemy, for example. One of the hypotheses is that his own chart, if not hypothetical, was the reason his fame has been harmed.
I can?t see any logical reason: Anthologiae contains technical teachings that were not taught in any other place!
It was in that sense that I referred to the fact that Valens astrological work was almost unknown comparing to Ptolemy?s , whose astrological technique was incorporated to the Medieval astrological tradition.

best wishes

Clelia

Deb:

I forgot to" discuss" your important paragraph:

(They would have been especially interesting if you had got, and then translated books 8 & 9 ! Smile )

Yes! It would be really nice! Anyway we never lose for trying,

best wishes

Clelia

Gjiada wrote:I'm becoming mad trying to remember where I read but when Ptolemy tells "the ancient astrologers" this it should be read Petosiris.

Ptolemy (as far as I recall) never refers to any authority by name in the Tetrabiblos, but he does mention 'the ancient one' in passing in the beginning of his discussion of the length of life (III.10 or III.11 depending on which edition you use), and others have understood this to refer to Nechepso-Petosiris.

In the words of Kusyar Ibn Labban, Arabic writer/scientist and philosopher:

Steven, can you let us know roughly when he was writing? Given the oft quoted assertion that once astrology and astronomy were the same his contrasting definitions are useful.

Thanks,

Matt