Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi all, I (janeg) haven't been on here for quite awhile (had to re-register with a new id so that gives you a clue to how long it has been);however, last year I decided to give Valens a closer study and began reformatting sections of the Riley text and adding graphics (charts, tables); I ended up re-formatting the whole text!

In the event others might find it useful thought I'd post a link to the revised PDF: Vettius Valens Anthologies

The latex files are also available in case anyone wants to re-format things themselves.

Happy studies
Jane

Thank you, Jane! That's a lot of work you've put into the text, and you are very generous to share it freely. Riley's translation has its weaknesses, but it's the best one out there yet.

There was one thing that caught my eye as I was skimming through the text just now: on p. 247, you write:

Personally I find Valen’s thirty degree measures taken in right-ascenion degrees (essentially Placidus houses) provide the best measure of strength.

(Incidentally, there is a typo there: right-ascension.) If you trisect the mundane quadrants along the equator, which I suppose must be what you mean, you get either Alcabitius houses or Regiomontanus houses, depending on which way you turn the circles passing through the intermediate cusps. Placidus houses are much more fiddly.

In any case, I agree with your point (very softly made) that there is nothing in Valens' text actually to suggest that he used quadrant houses only to gauge planetary strength.

Thanks again for sharing!

(Incidentally, there is a typo there: right-ascension.) If you trisect the mundane quadrants along the equator, which I suppose must be what you mean, you get either Alcabitius houses or Regiomontanus houses, depending on which way you turn the circles passing through the intermediate cusps. Placidus houses are much more fiddly.

Hi Martin, thanks for pointing out the typo (I'm sure there are more ).

Re: the Placidus cusps; I've been playing with my own system of primary directing for a number of years now, where I subtract 30 degree intervals starting from the directed RAMC and then translate the results to longitude using the appropriate house poles to get directed house cusps. If you make the same calculation for the birth RAMC it is reasonably close to Placidus cusps;however, in this context, my thinking probably makes little sense to others so I'll remove that footnote. Again, thanks for taking the time to comment.

PS I have both your Primary Direction books, they are very handy

Thank you Jane,
For all the hard work you put into this and making it available to the community.
Time to study now!
Ouranos

Your welcome Ouranos, hope you find it useful.

Hi Jane,
I haven't had time yet to do more than quickly scroll through the PDF file but it does indeed look really good and I am going to enjoy exploring it more carefully when I get the time.

A few years ago I started my own annotated reproduction of the text, investing most heavily in the text of book I, because I felt this first book was badly garbled and rushed over in all of the translations, due to translators not really understanding what Valens was communicating. It was a lot of mental frustration and anguish, just to get to the point where I did understand (more of less) and could follow his instruction to the point where I realised he had given the key to the whole chart calculation process. Unfortunately, other commercial projects took over, and so this has sat 90% complete since early last year.
I hope, within the next couple of months, I can get back to that and complete book I to make it available on Skyscript. At that time I will build a page around Valens and it will be great for me to include a link there to your PDF which gives all the other books as well.

I have no idea if or when I will be able to release the other books myself - I would like to - over time - but I do things slowly, and I feel that the first book is the one I can offer most value to - that, in itself, is a worthwhile project for increasing understanding of ancient chart calculation methods. (It is because that information was not properly understood, that many astrologers have projected assumptions onto Valens' text that were not a part of his treatment of the subject).

Great to see this contribution of yours - thank you for sharing this with us all.

Deb

Your welcome Deb. Look forward to seeing your version of Book 1, I really appreciate the time and care you take in producing your articles; reading them is always time well spent.

Thank you very much, janeg. What a monumental effort on your part. Very much appreciated! Valens will always remain the most cryptic and enigmatic astrologer and author.

I find Schmidt's translation to be far the best. It is too terse in some instances, but he was always trying to stay closest to the original. On the other hand, Riley's is free, as well as much easier to read.

When I wrote my tutorial on Valens on being abroad and emigration, I worked with the above two, along with Andrea Gehrz's and the German translation.

I have to disagree about Schmidt's translation. Riley's is often somewhat free, and occasionally wrong, but he does know Greek, and his English is clear and comprehensible. Schmidt's is the opposite of that, and he still misunderstood a lot. I think the impression of Schmidt staying close to the original is mostly a result of his English phrasing and terminology being so idiosyncratic. 'Cryptic and enigmatic' may actually be a better description of Schmidt's translation than of Valens' original! (Valens is disorganized, which he remarks on himself, but that's another matter.)

I haven't read Andrea Gehrz's translation, but Schönberger & Knobloch has its own problems...

Zagata wrote:Thank you very much, janeg. What a monumental effort on your part. Very much appreciated! Valens will always remain the most cryptic and enigmatic astrologer and author.

Your welcome Zagata. It did take awhile, I originally just wanted cleaner chart drawings, then more spaced out text (old eyes) in a few sections I was interested in and next thing I knew I’d reformatted most of the book…

I find Schmidt's translation to be far the best. It is too terse in some instances, but he was always trying to stay closest to the original. On the other hand, Riley's is free, as well as much easier to read.

When I wrote my tutorial on Valens on being abroad and emigration, I worked with the above two, along with Andrea Gehrz's and the German translation.

I have some of Schmidt’s translations, they are harder reading initially but once you get used to his terminology things go smoother. I have not read any of Gerhz’s or the German translation.

I have to disagree about Schmidt's translation. Riley's is often somewhat free, and occasionally wrong, but he does know Greek, and his English is clear and comprehensible. Schmidt's is the opposite of that, and he still misunderstood a lot. I think the impression of Schmidt staying close to the original is mostly a result of his English phrasing and terminology being so idiosyncratic. 'Cryptic and enigmatic' may actually be a better description of Schmidt's translation than of Valens' original! (Valens is disorganized, which he remarks on himself, but that's another matter.)

I haven't read Andrea Gehrz's translation, but Schönberger & Knobloch has its own problems...

That is of course your own prerogative, Martin. Having command of the language (ancient Greek in this case) is enough for translators in the vast majority of cases. However, when we get to technical concepts, when we get to concepts that are nowhere defined, it becomes mandatory to stay as close as possible to the original. Schmidt is by far the best here, because he worked with astrologers and eventually became a practising astrologer himself, whereas the translators are merely academics. I am not saying Schmidt is infallible.

What I am saying is because the topic of being abroad and emigration has not been treated by any other author in history (Ptolemy's few sentences is the only exception. I have given it, but it is so brief that it cannot be used unless the chart matches the exact configuration), while I was working on my tutorial and showing how the method is applied, I wanted to make sure I had the best version of the 4 translations.

The text itself is about 2300 words. My interpretation and explanation of the text is 9914 words. I urge any astrologer to try and understand what the text is saying. You will not be able to, not unless you dedicate yourself, and it will take a long time. And even if/when you do, then you will have to test and apply to method to actual charts, which Valens and the source he is quoting does not show. And on top of this, an absolutely vital piece of informaton is missing. I mean the Lot of Being Away from Home. Without figuring out which Lot this is, it is pretty much impossible to apply the method.

No surviving author is as cryptic and enigmatic as Valens. Ptolemy is not even close. And that is one reason why astrologers teach Ptolemy, Dorotheus, Rhetorius, but not Valens.

There is a reason Valens demands oaths from his reader that contain curses those who fail to keep them. Unlike the above three authors and almost all others.

Putting discussions of curses, why Valens is or isn't taught, etc., to one side for now, from my perspective as both an academic and an astrologer, I'd like to focus on this:

Zagata wrote:Schmidt is by far the best here, because he worked with astrologers and eventually became a practising astrologer himself, whereas the translators are merely academics.

The first thing a translator needs is a good working knowledge of both source and target language. 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.

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.