Hi Mithra6!

Mithra6 wrote:Again I think that's what commentary is for. One non-Hindsight example of where you see a lot of unusual terms is translations of Vedic texts. Often you'll see some specialized word, which of course makes you stop, then you find out it means something simple. What's the point? That's what commentaries are for. While not academic, try reading Blavatsky some time. It's horrible.

This is the point, that the word is not something simple, but something taken for granted and drained of any conceptual power, without any ability for the imagination to come alive and help you really grasp what is being communicated.

Not sure if I would make prisoners read Blavatsky. LOL

Good to know you're working on Agrippa!

Mithra6 wrote:In the 17th century translation of Agrippa by J.F., he repeatedly uses the word "spirit" in various places. Sometimes this is literally correct, since the Latin is "spiritus" or a derivative. However Agrippa often uses the word "daemon". In those cases I've translated it as "daemon". The reason, is because sometimes he uses "spirit" and "daemon" in the same sentence, but "daemon" isn't always meant to be an evil force.

Now I know this will cause confusion, and I'll need to explain it. To many people today, a "daemon" or "demon" makes people think of devils, which isn't Agrippa's intention. In fact he even says "good daemon" in some places. That is an example where I will have to use a word in a way people don't expect, but there isn't a way around it. I can't say "spirit" or "angel" because that isn't remotely what he means.

Daimon is an interesting word, and being a spirit of a locality, or an attendant exercising a power of a deity, is also an interesting idea. You're right to say it isn't an angel, and spirit can be much too broad depending on the circumstances. And then you have the Agathosdaimon, being the attendant & guiding spirit given to one at his birth (along with that other one that people will not appreciate ) Saying "good spirit" doesn't really carry the weight of the meaning, and that may force you to "let the spirit move you" and be creative. But translation is interpretation, no way around it.

GR, Of course human trafficking, sadly, is alive and well. The UN has information on it, also.

But organized crime's trafficking in women or children across international boundaries as sex workers; or African boys forced to join genocidal militia gangs today is different than the kind of slavery that existed in ancient times-- or in the antebellum South. It is different than the kind of slavery the ancient astrologers discussed.

The Oxford Classical Dictionary entry on slavery refers to Aristotle's doctrine of "natural slavery", and notes that "...Greek life and thought were inextricably bound up with the ideology and practice of human servitude." They had categories of servitude that don't exist today. Chattel slavery was also common in the Roman empire, where scholars have estimated two million slaves in Italy at the end of the Republic; with a slave: free ratio of 1:3. We have nothing like this today. Elite men (of the sort that appear in Vettius Valens's sample horoscopes) might own hundreds of slaves. "At no time was there any serious questioning of the structural role of slavery in Graeco-Roman society."

One thing that comes across ifrom the Hellenistic astrologers is how important social status was, and how humiliating having slave parents, descending into slavery, or having a slave wife would be.

If a Hellenistic astrologer today encounters a client whose parents were slaves or who would end his days in servitude, it would be highly unusual. Yet no doubt some of these slavery astrological signatures would appear in charts of people seeking astrological services today. In order to interpret those signatures for today's client, you would have to modify the interpretation. (Examples available upon request.)

But Mithra6, if you're still here, could you comment further on the word "house" for our word "sign" in antiquity? I was intrigued in reading Francesca Rochberg's work on Babylonian astrology to learn that their word for our "sign" was "bit" (sorry, minus the accent mark) which sounds like a cognate of the Hebrew word "bet" (beth) for house. "Bet" brings up all sorts of associations and our modern word "domicile" doesn't quite touch it. (cf. "house of the Lord" or "house of David.")

Which seems like one could have a literal translation of a Greek or Latin word for "sign" in an astrological text and still miss out on the rich associations that a native speaker would have for it. I wonder if "house" (as sign) to a Roman would have conjured up textured associations of an extended patriarchal household and lands that we cannot capture today regardless of which word we use. If so, it would help to explain why having a planet in its own "house[hold]" would be so powerful.

I wonder if some of this richness is what Gehrz is trying to reinsert in her text. A lot of writers of critical editions would place their collateral interpretive material in footnotes, whereas it appears that Gehrz is inserting some of it in the translation text itself.

I apologize for helping to derail the thread.

waybread wrote:But organized crime's trafficking in women or children across international boundaries as sex workers; or African boys forced to join genocidal militia gangs today is different than the kind of slavery that existed in ancient times-- or in the antebellum South. It is different than the kind of slavery the ancient astrologers discussed.

Not at all. Taking the Roman Republic/Empire example, most people reduced to slavery were prisoners of war, which is usually an organized effort, though completely legal. Sex slavery was also prominent, as well as the usual manual labor kind. One version that would stand out today is highly skilled slavery, usually those who were made to do accounting, teaching, and other clerical work. But then again, it is my understanding that much of the cyber crime engaged today, for example that originating in Russia for example, is untimately the work of hackers who are threaten with death or the death of their loved ones by organized crime. That's a kind of slavery, though not one with official sanction. But is it the official sanction that makes it slavery, or is it the way that the life suffers under such a state that makes it so? A street prostitute under the thumb of a pimp, subjected to physical assault or forced drug addictition is in a state of slavery as much as someone captured from Thrace by Rome was.

waybread wrote: If a Hellenistic astrologer today encounters a client whose parents were slaves or who would end his days in servitude, it would be highly unusual.

Honestly can't agree with this either, though modern circumstances are different. People who are ashamed that their parents were immigrants still exist, and the close relation of slavery to being "exiled from ones homeland" is attested in the Hellenistic astrological literature, also in the Muslim period as well, I believe. And are there not people who end up in prostitution because of drug addiction, or in service to the mob because of gambling debts?

As for with "modifying the interpretation", I do wonder what you mean by this, as the point of astrology is to make sense of the life, according to the principals behind the astrology, which aren't subject to cultural modification, as they are not cultural but systemic.

waybread wrote:The Oxford Classical Dictionary entry on slavery refers to Aristotle's doctrine of "natural slavery", and notes that "...Greek life and thought were inextricably bound up with the ideology and practice of human servitude." They had categories of servitude that don't exist today. Chattel slavery was also common in the Roman empire, where scholars have estimated two million slaves in Italy at the end of the Republic; with a slave: free ratio of 1:3.

And we have categories of slavery that they never thought of..., we just don't call it that. Corporate indentured servitude with credit scores, etc, is just a cleverly disguised form of modern feudalism. As king Solomon said "There is nothing new under the Sun". The heart of man is as vile as it has always been and the technology has only made it worse.

But this has little to do with the discussion at hand.

GR and Curtis, howbeit you start a new thread on the extent to which Hellenistic astrologers' interpretations and predictions can or cannot be applied to modern westerners? I think some interesting discussion could result. I'd be curious to learn, for example, whether you think there are any portions of Dorotheus, Valens, Ptolemy, Firmicus Maternus, et al. that really cannot translate successfully to 2012.

As it is, your latest posts confirm my concern, in my own mind, at least. You've both come up with some modern comparables dealing with corporations, credit scores, technology, computer-hacking, organized crime, immigration, and drug addiction. But these are not chattel slavery.

Slavery in antiquity had some serious differences with slavery today; not the least of which is the sheer high percentage of the populace who were enslaved; and how integrated these slaves were into daily life. For sure foreign prisoners of war were typically enslaved, but home-grown people became slaves through many other means, such as being born to slave parents on a political leader's estate. The closest comparable to this example would be something like George Washington's slave-holding on his plantation in the antebellum South; or being a serf on a European feudal estate, minus the land rights.

A real difference with ancient chattel slavery was that it was legally approved: indeed woven into the very fabric of society. As weak and unenforced as current laws are today about enforced labour, in most places forced unpaid labour is not legally sanctioned, and perpetrators can be prosecuted. Having immigrant parents today in the West is nothing like the social class structure of the Roman empire. Non-chattel slavery has the prospect of ending, for one thing; when children get too old to be considered serviceable for the nefarious purposes for which they are trafficked.

But again, if you have ever had to deal with actual chattel slavery in a Hellenistic chart interpretation for a client or poster on an Internet forum, I would enjoy learning about it.

One concern is with delineations (like in Dorotheus) that indicate how to tell if someone's mother was a slave. The statistical odds of that being correct today for someone with this horoscope signature are remote. So would you just ignore it, in light of modern times?

See you on a new thread?

waybread wrote: But Mithra6, if you're still here, could you comment further on the word "house" for our word "sign" in antiquity? I was intrigued in reading Francesca Rochberg's work on Babylonian astrology to learn that their word for our "sign" was "bit" (sorry, minus the accent mark) which sounds like a cognate of the Hebrew word "bet" (beth) for house. "Bet" brings up all sorts of associations and our modern word "domicile" doesn't quite touch it. (cf. "house of the Lord" or "house of David.")

It depends. Sometimes it's called a "house", sometimes a "sign". There aren't many Latin "Hellenistic" astrologers, but the few that are there, seem to use "house" and "sign" interchangeably. When you get to the medieval period, it becomes confusing. Ben Dykes talked about this in his Bonatti introduction.

Agrippa often calls signs "houses", but from the context you can see he's talking about a sign (i.e. Leo is the house of the Sun), but then he'll talk about the "9th house", which I assume means what we would call a house. According to Thorndyke, Agrippa used Regiomontanus, but so far I haven't actually seen Agrippa say that. Agrippa surely would have used a quadrant system, but then again he's 16th century.

waybread wrote: One concern is with delineations (like in Dorotheus) that indicate how to tell if someone's mother was a slave. The statistical odds of that being correct today for someone with this horoscope signature are remote. So would you just ignore it, in light of modern times?

What are these "statistical odds"? I've already shown that slavery & servitude clearly still exist in the modern world, even if our insular First World lifestyles have made it seem invisible and I don't see the need to belabor the point here or in another thread.

waybread wrote:As it is, your latest posts confirm my concern, in my own mind, at least. You've both come up with some modern comparables dealing with corporations, credit scores, technology, computer-hacking, organized crime, immigration, and drug addiction. But these are not chattel slavery.

Slavery in antiquity had some serious differences with slavery today; not the least of which is the sheer high percentage of the populace who were enslaved; and how integrated these slaves were into daily life.

Indeed... not only that but they called them "jobs" such that we worship the "job creator" so that we are now in favor of being enslaved for "our benefit". (I think it's being called the 99% by those who have woken up to see their masters snickering and laughing all the way to the bank while their homes are being foreclosed and their credit is falling...)

waybread wrote:A real difference with ancient chattel slavery was that it was legally approved: indeed woven into the very fabric of society. As weak and unenforced as current laws are today about enforced labour, in most places forced unpaid labour is not legally sanctioned, and perpetrators can be prosecuted.

While those now just coming out with student loans cannot discharge them through hardship and will even have their pensions garnished in old age. It has progressed to eliminate the apparent stigma and slap a "smiley face" on the fascism. So whether its called slavery (6th house) or employment (6th house) or being owned as a slave (2nd house) or being owned by your credit score (2nd house) what of the eidos of this issue has changed? Do we now need to invent new houses for "chattel slavery"? How about Ophiuchus, anyone?

Otherwise this is just a derailment to the real issue at question...

Rather than just accept the views being put out here I prefer to read some solid scholarship on the topic of slavery in classical times.

I found this article:

http://www.moyak.com/papers/roman-slavery-war.html

Also this suggested bibliography:

Slavery in the Roman Empre by RH Barrow (Barnes & Noble, 1998)

Suetonius' Life of Nero: An Historical Commentary edited by KR Bradley (Collection Latomus, Brussels, 1978)

Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire: A Study in Social Control by KR Bradley (Oxford University Press, 1987)

Slavery and Rebellion in the Roman World, 140 BC - 70 BC by KR Bradley (Batsford, 1989; reprint 1998)

Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology by MI Finley (Chatto and Windus, 1980)

Slavery and Society at Rome by KR Bradley (Cambridge University Press, 1994)

Suetonius edited and translated by JC Rolfe; revised edition with a new introduction by KR Bradley (Harvard University Press, 1998)

Conquerors and Slaves by K Hopkins (Cambridge, 1978)

Spartacus and the Slave Wars by BD Shaw (Boston, 2001)


Failing that there is always the topic of this thread........

Mark

"The Moon brings the experience of pronoia, which could be described as the sensation of using one's intuition and harkening to the messages of foreknowledge that occur around us. The Sun's beams bring the quality of brightness to life, making things and people seem to shine and gleam. Saturn rules (...Greek terms here...), meaning experiences of fate and destiny which we could not have foreseen coming, as they are intended to bring wisdom through austerity. "

I don't read Greek, but this is too much for me given how Schmidt and Riley translated the same passage. Changing foresight into "intuition" is modern astrology at its worst. The words don't mean the same thing in English, so someone is off base.

Then there is the pagination. 64 pages becomes 241? Unless that is due to heavy annotation, I'd say there is as much imagination as translation going on here.

As someone who has read the Greek text, I'd prefer the Gehrz translation to be called a paraphrase, especially a paraphrase of personal favours. It obviously inserts innumerable textual and astrological interpretations into the transmitted text, which undeniably makes it much more reader-friendly but, at the same time, it reflect the translator's views which can be debated and which can easily regarded as biased interpretations. I'll give three examples; the conclusion is up to you.

At the end of the very first chapter of Valens, the author (or the editor, given the fact that Anthologies seems to have been reworked at least twice) summarizes the rulerships of planets, connecting pronoia to the Moon. The first meaning of this term is 'foresight' (or rather, 'foreknowledge') indeed, but transferring the first entry from a dictionary is not the way how a quite special term should be translated, neither Gehrz's solution is helpful which barely circumscribes the word with a composition of personal choice. To fully interpret in order to find the exact meaning, I think we'd better examine the occurrences in the astrological literature in general and in Valens in particular. Anyway, I've checked the occurrences of pronoia in Valens' Books IV, VII and IX where the most suitable translation is 'providence' that may apply for this passage too, at least this is how Schmidt also interprets it. If all that's right, Gehrz's additions are not really well addressed.

Further in this book, the first paragraph in chapter 19 is given in translation and compared by David Roell (see Astraea's link above) where there are two major bits of disagreement. First, homose huparchontes is interpreted by Gehrz as 'being of the same sect' while both Riley and Schmidt gives 'being together' (it's not clear whether bodily or in aspect, though). The Greek original, roughly, translates 'being under the same condition' which is in fact open to any astrological interpretation. The topic of this chapter is the sumparousia ('being together', either in one company or helping each other as friends) and sugkrasis ('commixture'), however, and the former term is regularly used besides marturia ('testimony', which refers to an aspect-like relationship) in Valens, thus it must refer to bodily conjunction.

Second, in the same place there is the meaning of this Saturn-Jupiter conjunction which affects the native. The operating verb here is apotelein which roughly translates as 'give an outcome as' (yes, this is where apotelesmatics come from), and while Riley and Schmidt chose a verb faithful to the original meaning ('bring about/cause' and 'produce'), Gehrz gives 'can bring/can make the native inclined' which is clearly a stance of a modern astrologer, not Valens'. On the top of all these, Gehrz translates phorologos as if they are someone involved in paying monthly (LOL!) bills, despite the fact that it means only 'tax-gatherer' (or if you like, 'tax-ologist' ).

Suffice it to say that your contemporary "examples" precisely support the point of modernizing Hellenistic astrology to meet today's concerns!!! These examples aren't anything like the kind of chattel slavery that existed in ancient times.

Sorry that my point about "odds" seemed so opaque. Consider that if you have a society where one out of every four or five individuals is a slave (as pertained in some places and times in antiquity;) that has to read very differently than in a western society today where a much smaller percentage of the populace is trafficked or paying off student loans (!! ), as we have today. So if an astrologer like Dorotheus gives a horoscopic placement that indicates one's mother is a slave, and we determine that millions of people should have this placement even though the incident of maternal slavery is very small, we might want to think through the implications of that.

Mark, thank you for posting those references!

I also have to say that many of the issues raised by today's Hellenistic astrology are beyond the simple acquisition of ancient Greek or Latin at a B.A. level. Some of the interpretive work has to be done at the level of philology.

Levente Laszlo, thank you for sharing your insights! Perhaps Gehrz would have done better putting her glosses into footnotes.