Deb wrote:Theresa, the book Ptolemy in Perspective is very expensive but Alexander Jones?s research surpasses anything else that has been published on the matter of tropical/sidereal calculations to date.

This sounds excellent, I'm going to look into getting it, as well.

Deb wrote:...I?m glad that we are getting well written explorations of how the sidereal system differs, why Indian practitioners maintain it and why some practitioners in the west prefer it. I don't think the sidereal argument is stronger than the arguments made in favour of the tropical zodiac but I definitely think the sidereal argument is currently not getting the representation and effective explanations it deserves.

That's my view, too. Some time ago I was researching Rudolf Steiner's thoughts on astrology. Though not an astrologer, Steiner favored a sidereal approach for the purposes of his spiritual science, which spurred me to write Bill Johnston at Project Hindsight and ask for his input. He kindly wrote back that the thinking at Hindsight is that tropical and sidereal systems work equally well for discrete purposes, and were probably used simultaneously (though of course the beginning points were not very different in times past). Johnston wrote that he thinks we will probably end up using both, in some fashion yet to be determined.

At any rate, I'm very glad to see this subject discussed and addressed in a forum - and through texts - of this calibre.

To Everyone at the Skyscript Forum,

Deb has so kindly asked me to join this forum, and I am delighted to be asked!

While it is challenging to respond to questions in regards to translation specifics in this virtual format, I would like to mention my excitement at the growing number of translations of these ancient astrological texts.
This body of ancient work is a testament to the deep history of our field.
Moreover, it is my belief that any important historical book deserves a few good renderings, so that the modern student can compare the various translations.

I also send out respect and good vibes to anyone who has attempted to render an ancient text into a modern mind-frame, as it can be a bear of a task. I look forward to the day when Mark Riley, Robert Schmidt, and I can be in the same room in order to compare the details of these three translations. Surely together these three renderings can shed some light upon the meaning of this text, in order that the ideas of Valens can be remembered for two thousand years to come.

In other news...I am excited to be involved in this forum!
Thank you in advance for a lively discussion.


Warmly,

Andrea (Gehrz)

The Moira Press
www.moirapress.org

Welcome, Andrea, it's lovely that you're here!

Yes, very happy that you're here with us, Andrea.

Welcome to the discussion Andrea and thanks for joining us.

I haven't seen your translation of Valens but am aware that you take a different approach to Riley and Schmidt - for example, the number of words that your rendering of the text has produced has been commented on as surprising long. I wonder if you would mind making a little comment to explain something about your own approach. This was obviously a conscious decision on your part and I'm quite certain that your motivation was to achieve a greater sense of accuracy in the reader's understanding of the principles involved.

BTW, my own view is that alternate translations are a good thing, and that we shouldn't be thinking about one translation 'versus' another, because each has a specific merit which is best understood when the reader is aware of what drives the translator's style. Hence my question - it is not expected to be challenging.

I would also love to hear your view on that passage about Aries which was quoted on page 1 of this thread. The significance of that turned the focus of the thread towards the question of sidereal/tropical calculation, and because of its implications on that matter it has attracted a lot of attention - possibly more than you anticipated or gave to that particular passage yourself? Or would you still translate it the same? I'm curious on that, but again, not trying to challenge you, just very interested in hearing your view.

Best regards
Deb

Interesting discussion, everyone!

Just a bit of embroidery on what has already been stated....

1. In terms of what Valens meant by Aries or the other signs, in the passages cited above, he seems to be using them much as we would describe months. We might say that the early part of March is wintery, but the latter part is warmer ("in like a lion, out like a lamb.") The Greeks' (and others') use of constellations as a grand calendar in literary sources goes back to Hesiod, and shows up in Aratus, Phaenomena. The Greeks also had devices called peripegmata, used to track phenology via star positions.

What fascinated me about the weather lore attributed to different portions of signs was that Valens was living in Alexandria, yet (at least today) it is a very dry area, with most of the scant preciptation [200 mm/ or about 8"year] that it does get falling in autumn and winter. [We can jog its months back to allow for precession.] I wondered whether his weather lore might have come from some source other than his direct observation.

It is hard to make out current weather patterns for Alexandria from Valens's descriptions, even allowing for precession. But maybe I am not following his meaning correctly! It is possible that by describing weather as "hot and causing plagues" or "worthless and destructive" he means the hamsin (sirroco) winds. But "rains and constant thunderstorms" for Egypt during the month of Cancer really doesn't sound right! The Mediterranean region in general has rainless summers and rainy winters. You might find thunderstorms up in the mountains, but no where near northern Egypt. Then you wouldn't expect to find mid-Capricorn to be "firey".

Then Pisces, coming just before the Aries weather lore posted above, should somewhat match up with Aries, yet its latter part is "destructive and worthless." He doesn't say why. Rain was generally considered beneficial to ancient Mediterranean farmers.

2. Even more curious, if we read onto the next section (I:3) Valens gives the 50 terms, with a fresh look at weather patterns, inter-digitated with personal character traits. These weather patterns are different than the ones he just gave in sec. 1:2! In 1:2, the first part of Aries is "Stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive." In 1:3, the first part of Aries is fine, but degrees 7-15 are "windy, stormy, full of thunder and lightning." Siminlarly, for Gemini in 1:2, "the first 3 degrees are worthless and destructive" yet in 1:3, the first 6 degrees of Gemini are "temperate, with fine weather."

This suggests (a) that Valens compiled his weather lore from other sources developed outside of northern Egypt; and (b) that weather lore just wasn't his thing.

3. I am pretty sure that Valens would have known about precession. The only question, really, is what ancient astrologers decided to do about it. The ancient Egyptians oriented some of their temples to the rising sun and Sirius at key times of the year, and would have known that they were getting out of alignment after a few centuries. Intriguingly, a relatively unimportant ram-headed god named Ammon became extremely important after the spring equinox moved from Taurus to Aries.

Once you sit down with the book of Revelation in the Bible and a backyard astronomy field guide to the constellations, you can see this debate about whether to move the equinox back into Pisces playing out with encrypted references to constellations encoded as heavenly visions.

I've got the Riley preliminary translation of Valens, which says re: Aries "from the first degree to the equinox" which sounds like a Babylonian equinox embedded within the sign, to me.

4. Neugebauer and Van Hoesen calculated all of the horoscopes (by hand!) mentioned in Valens, in their monograph Greek Horoscopes. My recollection is that these horoscopes all, or nearly all, panned out as consistent with planetary positions for actual dates during or just prior to Valens's time. I don't think this could have worked had their calculations been way off.

Good Morning to the SkyScipt Forum,

This is a very interesting discussion in regards to Valens!


While I don't have time this morning to answer all the questions at hand, I would like to at least make a post to address Deb's question in regards to my "lens" as a translator.

In general, it has been my goal to provide access the deepest layer of meaning possible in my translations, without incidentally adding any meaning that was not embedded within the source text. I feel as though it is my duty as a translator to write down the text in a manner through which it will be understood by the reader in the same manner as I have understood it by reading it in the original language.

Essentially, this means that I have rendered the Source Text into a modern Astrologer's English so that the modern reader will glean the same information and concepts that I have absorbed from reading the text in its original language. In order to convey the breadth and depth of meaning that lies within the words of a text such as Valens, I have used certain "translation tools" such as but not limited to: Framing, Tagging, Phonetical Rendering of Terms, Explicitization, Chunking, and many more.

Because I have in all circumstances attempted to provide the deepest layer of meaning that can be gleaned from the text, my translation is naturally going to become longer than the Source Text. The reason for this is that in order to convey the true meaning of the ancient concepts, certain "concept gaps" must be bridged along the way.

For the purpose of understanding the idea of "concept gaps", as well as the function and fashion of a "meaning-based translation", let us do a little translation exercise. This exercise will also show the exact reason that a true "meaning-based" translation will be longer than the source text itself.


In the case our Translation-Example exercise, we will be translating from:

Source Language: Technical Astrological English

Target Language: Explicit and Non-Astrologically Jargoned English


Example: Scene at an Astrology Conference


There are three astrologers chatting at the dinner table. One of the three astrologers is married to a non-astrologer, who is also present at the table.

At some point in the conversation, one of the three astrologers says:

"Oh man, this girl I dated had a "Venus Mars Neptune Saturn Uranus Mercury Pluto conjunction. In the eighth house! In Aries!"

The other two astrologers then of course begin to gasp and weep at the horror of such an aspect.

The non-astrologically-inclined partner becomes lost at this point, not knowing why the other two astrologers are responding in this manner. The reason for this is that the partner does not understand the "embedded meaning" in the technical phrase:

Venus Mars Neptune Saturn Uranus Mercury Pluto conjunction in the Eighth House

There exists a "concept gap" here between the Astrologers and the non-Astrologer.



When the partner says, "What!?" "What does that mean?", there are a few ways to "translate" the true meaning of this sentence.

Here are a few examples, each one differing in the amount of meaning that is actually conveyed to the non-astrologer.


Level One meaning 1. Never mind it is too complicated


Level Two Meaning 2. Oh her chart was just really hard to handle!

Level Three Meaning 3. "Well, it means that her ability to communicate was both sweet yet highly highly hot and energized. Her mental quality also tended to be confused yet highly charged up, intense, and constricted all at the same time."

Level Four Meaning 4. In Astrology, the planets represent energies. The signs show the filter through which those energies are expressed, and the houses show the areas of life into which those energies are expressed. There is something in Astrology called "aspects". Aspects are the angles between two planets in the chart, showing how the vibrations of each planet mix and mingle.

In this particular chart, the following energies were combined all together, meaning that their vibrations also mixed:

Mercury = Communicative and talkative
Venus = sweet
Mars = Rawr!!!!
Neptune =confusing
Uranus = Jacked up
Pluto = Deeply intense

In this girl's Astrological Chart, all of these energies mixed together!!! Always. Every time!! A conjunction is a special kind of aspect that means two planets are on top of each other. And in this case she had 6 planets on top of each other, mixing energies all the time.

Moreover, the filter that these energies all simultaneously squeezed out through was the sign of Aries, which is hot-headed and brash. And the eighth house is also intense! It is all about death and rebirth and other people's money and resource sharing.

Anyway, point is, that girl was intense!!!! Ultra Mega intense.




Now let us look at Valens. Here are a few examples from Valens in order to see how certain Translation Tools have been at work in my translation:



Vettius Valens of Antioch, Book One


Source Language: Eloquent yet Technical Astrologically-Learned Ancient Greek

Target Language: Eloquent yet Technical Astrologically-Learned English


Translation Tool Number One; Explicitization:

Allows the reader access to an explicit understanding of meaning that lies implicit within the Source Language.

Example from Valens in Greek: Jupiter rules "Gnosis".

Explicitization: Jupiter rules Gnosis, a specific kind of
knowledge that is gained through direct experience.


Translation Tool Number Two; Phonetical Rendering of Greek Terms:

Allows the reader to directly experience a word or concept that exists in the Source Language but does not exist in the Target Language.

Example from Valens in Greek: Mars is attributed to the flavor that is called "pikros".


Translation: Mars is attributed to the flavor that is called "pikros", a flavor which is sharp and pungent, especially when the food eaten was expected to be pleasant and is instead unpleasant and bitter.


These are just two examples of the many Translation Tools I have used in order to ensure that the most detailed form of meaning is provided to the reader of Valens.



In reference to someone's mention in the forum as to why I do not put these expanded meanings in the footnotes, my response is as follows:

When there is implicit meaning in the Greek text, I have chosen in all cases to put the explicated meaning into the body of the text. The reason for this is that within the scope and framework of a "Meaning-Based Translation", to leave out meaning is technically considered to be an omission.

A second reason for this decision is that I have reserved the footnotes for commentary about the Source Text itself, such as a mention of places in which the text is unclear, is marred, or could have multiple meanings. It is within the footnotes that I make mention of these things. And it is also within the footnotes that I included direct quotations from texting with Vettius Valens on the Ouija board......... (I'm joking! We all know that translating is an extremely Saturn endeavor.)


In other news...As soon as I have some more time, I will respond with an explanation of my translation choices on the Aries quote.

A Tiny Explanation: (it has to do with the grammatical gender and the Genitive ending of the word "iseimerinos", which could be said to mean "Equinox", but could also be said to simply mean "to be divided into exactly two parts. As is the day of the Equinox = half day, half night. To be continued....)

Also, I have a question to the readers on this forum: How many of you know ancient Greek, can read the language, etc? Your responses to this question will help me know how best to clearly explain my translation decisions, now and into the future.

Warmly,

Andrea (Gehrz)
The Moira Press
moirapress.org

Not I! But I (and I imagine other members of this forum) have studied other languages, and can conceptualize more generally some issues faced by translators. Some of the members of this forum are not native English speakers, for one thing.

Thanks for your interesting post, Andrea. One thing I got from it is that there is a body of scholarship out there on translation issues that the average astrologer probably wouldn't realize. Stuff like "concept gaps" and how the "target language" may be far more nuanced than simply assuming a plain meaning of the text.

Thanks for responding Andrea. I've been wondering whether the word translated as 'equinox' could have an alternative meaning which might affect the translation of that passage. If it could then it's important to know this, even if it is a controversial view.

Deb wrote:I've been wondering whether the word translated as 'equinox' could have an alternative meaning which might affect the translation of that passage. If it could then it's important to know this, even if it is a controversial view.

An important point to remember here is that a modern language like English has other languages from which scientific and other technical terms can be drawn (such as equinox, from Latin) or neologisms coined (such as television, from Greek and Latin). In a classical language like Greek, technical terms were typically constructed using everyday words in the common language -- in this case, ??????????, which is properly an adjective made up of the words for 'equal' and 'day' and the dictionary meaning of which is 'equinoctial'. (In Valens' text it is given in the genitive because it is preceded by the preposition ?????, 'up to', which takes the genitive.)

agehrz wrote:
A Tiny Explanation: (it has to do with the grammatical gender and the Genitive ending of the word "iseimerinos", which could be said to mean "Equinox", but could also be said to simply mean "to be divided into exactly two parts. As is the day of the Equinox = half day, half night. To be continued....)

I can't read Greek but I have Bezza translation of this page.
It seems to me that Valens mentions here 3 parts of Aries, not two halves.

At this line he (Bezza) puts a nice note " missing, see Kroll" and then integrates (in note) on the base of Hephaistio and Ptolemy:

Now the sign of Aries as a whole, because it marks the equinox, is characterized by thunder or hail, but, taken part by part, through the variation in degree that is due to the special quality of the fixed stars, its leading portion is rainy and windy, its middle temperate, and the following part hot and pestilential. Its northern parts are hot and destructive, its southern frosty and chilly.

In every case, interesting method of translating. I understand better from your explanation

margherita

Hey Everyone!

Here is a video response to the Aries question.

Warmly,

Andrea (Gehrz)
moirapress.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7j_5y0C ... e=youtu.be