Skyscript Astrology Forum

It would appear that the foundational texts for traditional Western astrology are mainly in Greek and Arabic. I do not have any Greek or Arabic. This is something that I may seek to remedy in the future.

Here are my questions:

1. How important are these languages for understanding texts that have already been translated?

Let's take Tetrabiblos as an example. There are probably a dozen translations of Tetrabiblos into English. If you had already read Tetrabiblos in English before reading Tetrabiblos in Greek, how much additional insight did reading the Greek original confer? If there was additional insight, to what extent was this additional insight useful for practical work in astrology?

2. My understanding may be incorrect on this point. However, to my understanding, most astrological texts in Latin are translations of existing Greek or Arabic texts. There are some original Latin texts, but they are not as important as the Greek or Arabic texts. (If I am wrong on this, please correct me.)

As mentioned, I do not have any Greek or Arabic. However, I do have some foundation in Latin. I am thinking that engaging with a good astrological text in Latin may be killing two birds with one stone. E.g., I can refresh my Latin and study astrology at the same time. Any good recommendations for Latin astrological texts?

3. As is well-known, Ptolemy wrote Almagest as well as Tetrabiblos. If you have read Almagest, whether in Greek, Arabic or English, how much additional insight did reading Almagest confer? If there was additional insight, to what extent was this additional insight useful for practical work in astrology?

Hello Neptune,
The most straightforward answer to your question is that a translation will give you access to authors of the past.
If you combine this with a translator who understands astrology then the meaning of a text will be enhanced.
But it requires more than that. The translator must also understand the customs and morals of an epoch, the conditions of the people and the environment..
For example, if you get married in India, you need to consider not only the 1st/7th axis but also the 4th/10th because the family and the social status are a deciding factor if the marriage will take place or not.
And sometimes, some words can hardly be translated because there is no equivalent in the destination language. Try to explain the snow to someone who spent his whole life in a desert.
The symbols in astrology are a language by itself. And these symbols are universal just like music and they can be interpreted in many different ways.
Every time you look at a chart, you are becoming a translator of the stars. No matter what language you speak.

And translating these symbols seems to be the most difficult language to learn.

Best to you,
Ouranos

Yes, most texts of importance for the development of astrology outside India (which is what people seem to mean by 'western', though I'd call that a misnomer) were originally written in Greek or Arabic, although there are a few exceptions, such as Firmicus (and Manilius) in Latin and ibn Ezra's works in Hebrew. Starting in the early modern period, more original works were produced in Latin, with printing technology facilitating both the production of longer works and wider dissemination. Before that time, most Latin works on astrology were translations from the Arabic.

Obviously it's always helpful to be able to read a work in the original, depending on your level of proficiency. But more translations are being produced all the time (although I doubt there are a dozen English versions of the Tetrabiblos), some of them very good. What I always recommend students to do if at all possible is to compare translations and take note of any major discrepancies, particularly on technically intricate matters. Then, if possible, you can try to get to the bottom of them. If you know other modern languages than English, it may be helpful to compare existing English translations with, e.g., French, German, Italian or Spanish ones.

Thank you, Ouranos and Martin Gansten, for replying.

Ashmand Edition

I became more interested in this issue while reading Tetrabiblos. Initially, I was reading the Ashmand translation. In Book 3, Chapter 4, I read,

Thus, for example, the degree of their fortune and wealth will be indicated by the doryphory, or attendants of the luminaries. If the luminaries be accompanied (either in the same signs in which themselves are placed, or in the signs next following), by the benefics, and by such stars or planets as are of the same tendency as themselves, a conspicuous and brilliant fortune is presaged: especially, should the Sun be attended by matutine stars, and the Moon by vespertine, and these stars be also well established in the prerogatives before mentioned.

I found this passage confusing, because concepts such as "such stars or planets as are of the same tendency as themselves" are not defined. (Certainly, one can speculate as to what "same tendency" refers to. However, there are too many possibilities: humour (e.g., hot, cold, wet, dry), sect, gender, benefic/malefic, etc.)

The words "such stars or planets" is also confusing, because one is left unclear as to whether one should look solely at the seven traditional planets, or whether one should look at fixed stars as well.

Robbins Edition

In the Robbins translation, the same passage reads:

Now the question of their fortune and wealth must be investigated by means of the attendance​ upon the luminaries; for when they are surrounded by planets that can be of profit and by planets of their own sect, either in the same signs or in the next following, they signify that the circumstances of the parents will be conspicuously brilliant, particularly if morning stars attend the sun and evening stars the moon, while the luminaries themselves are favourably placed in the way already described.

This is far clearer. I know what "planets of their own sect" refers to.

(I would note that, without reading the Robbins translation, it would not have occurred to me that "such stars or planets as are of the same tendency as themselves" refer to "planets of their own sect". This is because sects play a lesser and more nuanced role in Mediaeval/Renaissance Astrology than Hellenistic Astrology. I am not familiar with Hellenistic Astrology.)

Possible Solution

The solution seems to be to read the Robbins translation instead of the Ashmand translation. However, a doubt arises as follows: Perhaps the Robbins translation is too clear? Do the ambiguity and vagueness in the Ashmand translation exist in the Greek original, or were they introduced by Ashmand while translating?

As a person without Greek, without hunting down the original Greek and making a decision on that basis, it would seem to me that the Robbins translation should be reliable. This is because it was published as part of the Loeb Classical Library. In that case, the following question remains unanswered: Why did Ashmand choose to translate in such a vague and ambiguous way?

Lastly, there are some astrologers, who praise the Ashmand edition over the Robbins edition. They say that Ashmand was an astrologer, and his professional understanding of the text shows. Maybe I am just too slow-witted to appreciate Ashmand's genius?

Path Forward

At this juncture, I am of a mind to reread the whole thing using the Robbins edition. Then, I may come back to the Ashmand edition to see if I obtain any additional insight. Then, I may check out some other translations as well.

Reading Tetrabiblos has been rewarding in any event, even if there are still many confusing or doubtful passages for me.

Update

I have hunt down the Greek original: τῶν τῆς αὐτῆς αἱρέσεως

I would translate this as: "those of the same inclination" or "those of the same condition". Therefore, Ashmand's "such stars or planets as are of the same tendency as themselves" is closer to the literal meaning of the original. In that case, I wonder on what authority Robbins has decided to simplify this phrase as meaning just "planets of their own sect".

Neptune789 wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2024 12:43 amI have hunt down the Greek original: τῶν τῆς αὐτῆς αἱρέσεως

I would translate this as: "those of the same inclination" or "those of the same condition". Therefore, Ashmand's "such stars or planets as are of the same tendency as themselves" is closer to the literal meaning of the original. In that case, I wonder on what authority Robbins has decided to simplify this phrase as meaning just "planets of their own sect".

No, Robbins is quite right: hairesis is indeed the Greek word that we translate as 'sect'. Incidentally, Ashmand and Robbins were not translating the same text: Ashmand's translation is not of Ptolemy's original, but of Proclus' paraphrase, as stated on the title page:
https://archive.org/details/ptolemystet ... 5/mode/2up

Hi, Martin Gansten.

Oh wow! This forum truly is educational.

I can't believe I spent so many hours reading Ashmand's translation without realization that he was actually translating a paraphrase ...

Thank you for clarifying this issue, as well as the meaning of the word "hairesis", for me.