Skyscript Astrology Forum

With Andrea L. Gehrz's Vettius Valens of Antioch, Anthology, Book 1 (Portland, OR, USA, The Moira Press, 2011) we have yet another translation of Valens, and this is Valens as you have never seen him before. In her introduction Gehrz writes:

"It is my philosophy as a translator to never intrude upon the text but instead to render a readable and scholastically equivalent English version of the source text...As I have rendered this text from ancient Greek into English, I have done so by attending not only to the words written by Vettius Valens, but also to the spirit and intent behind the words..."

Here is an example of her translation, comparing it to Robert Schmidt's and the Riley translations:

"The Moon is set down as ruler of foresight, the Sun of light, Kronos of ignorance and necessity, Zeus of opinion and crowns of office and will, the star of Ares of action and troubles, the star of Aphrodite of love an desire and beauty, and the star of Hermes of law and custom and fidelity..."
(Robert Schmidt's translation of Book 1, p. 7)

"The Moon becomes the ruler of foresight, the Sun the ruler of light, Saturn the ruler of ignorance and necessity, Jupiter the ruler of rank, crowns and zeal. Mars becomes the ruler of action and effort, Venus the ruler of love, desire and beauty, Mercury the ruler of law, friendship, and trust..."
(Riley translation printed from the internet.)

And now Andrea Gehrz's translation: (I have not included the Greek terms except for "pronoia.")

"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.

"Jupiter rules (...Greek terms...) which could be described as the feeling of internal glory and eagerness, and the winning of wreaths and awards on account of this expansiveness...." Mars rules (....Greek terms...), meaning the energy within us that ignites practical action, leading to hard work, projects and the kind of toil that makes us sore and spent..."

"Venus rules (...Greek terms...), bringing a desire for love, passion and beautiful things. Mercury is the ruler of (...Greek terms....) , meaning the energy within us that desires to make acquaintances and get to know others intimately, bringing about a feeling of shared confidence, faith and trust."

I believe we can get the picture form these excerpts. Andrea Gehrz is an astrologer as well as a sign language interpreter.

Gehrz does something else that's very interesting. Whereas Schmidt and Riley discuss the "twelve signs" (Schmidt uses the term "Zoidia"), Gehrz titles this section of the text "On the Nature of the Twelve Constellations that Comprise the Zodiacal Circle." She alternates between the terms "constellation" and "sign" depending on the context when writing about the twelve divisions of the circle.

Gehrz's use of ample amounts of white space and an expanded translation makes the text eminently readable. The Schmidt text for Book 1 is 64 pages long in a stapled booklet. Gehrz's page count is 241!!

All in all, Gehrz has given us a very readable and new Valens as well as an expensive one. Book 1 prices in at $29 American dollars. The photo on the back of the book shows a very unscholarly looking Andrea lounging on the hood of a car beside an old manual typewriter. But she is indeed well qualified for this work. Welcome to the new younger breed of translators who don't hesitate to spread their wings!

Hi all

I'm indeed very suspicious of this translation!

Take this example for instance:

The Moon is set down as ruler of foresight, ..."
(Robert Schmidt's translation of Book 1, p. 7)

"The Moon becomes the ruler of foresight, ..."
(Riley translation printed from the internet.)

And Andrea Gehrz's translation reads:
"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.

I can hardly believe that Robert Schmidt, who's translation I've come to trust, and Riley, would have omitted a translation of something that Gehrz appends

... which could be described as the sensation of using one's intuition and harkening to the messages of foreknowledge that occur around us...

My strong impression is that this is a far to modern aside or comment on how the statements - about which Schmidt and Rily agree - should be read or understood.

I'm afraid that when this is the tenure of this translation, it is merely a 'lubricant' for contemporary notions, which rather obscure what might be implied by Valens.

She readily admits of this:

"...As I have rendered this text from ancient Greek into English, I have done so by attending not only to the words written by Vettius Valens, but also to the spirit and intent behind the words..."

Aha, so this is her understanding of the spirit and intent behind the words.

This then is indeed a product that might be dubbed neo-hellenistic astrology, and it is - emphatically - not an inquiry into the implications of the restauration of the hellenistic material.
To understand the spirit and intent behind the words requires something more than simply rendering it into modern parlance.

This then is indeed a product that might be dubbed neo-hellenistic astrology, and it is - emphatically - not an inquiry into the implications of the restauration of the hellenistic material.

While I can see the motivation for your critique of this work surely all efforts to present an authentic hellenistic astrology today could be described as 'neo-hellenistic'? We cannot avoid living in a modern cultural milieu. Moreover, attempts to restore a previous cultural outlook always have the inherent prejudices of its interpreters. I accept we need to make that effort. Perhaps this translator has not made sufficient effort in that respect. However, even the best intentioned efforts will not necessarily ensure a perfect restoration as you seem to assume.

Personally, I think more translations of a text are always welcome. Translations can be literal or looser. Some are better in reproducing the literal accuracy of a text while others can be more readable. Some translations manage to combine the two.

As a student of the I Ching I am aware of numerous translations of the text. They all have different nuances depending on the style of the author. Having different translations allows us to see the fluidity and subjectivity of the translation process. It also gives us different insights. So while I think your reservations and concerns are reasonable I think you have gone a bit far in effectively seeking to write off this translation.

In any case Robert Schmidt's translation was only itself presented as provisional. What happened to the TARES new version we were promised as Project Hindsight subscribers?

Mark

Mark wrote:Personally, I think more translations of a text are always welcome. Translations can be literal or looser. Some are better in reproducing the literal accuracy of a text while others can be more readable. Some translations manage to combine the two.

Slightly off-topic, but I can't resist: Esaias Tegn?r (1782-1846), a Swedish poet, bishop and professor of Greek at my home university, once wrote in a letter to his friend and colleague Carl Gustaf von Brinkman: 'Beautiful translations, like beautiful wives, are not always the most faithful ones.' (I hasten to add that the same observation may of course be made about husbands.)

I translate Latin, and I can say especially with esoteric texts, that there are certain keywords used specifically for philosophical and esoteric texts. These keywords sometimes look like words we use in everyday life, but carry more complex meanings (such as Plato's "forms"). Other times the words might be unfamiliar such as synderesis, which can be seen as a sort of conscience.

There are also words that the ancients used that can literally be translated into a modern word that might make sense, but don't carry the same meaning. An example is the Latin termini for term. Today we often think of a term as a length of office like a politician, and while this still applies to a planet's term, the logic can be confusing for some.

These are questions all translators have to grapple with. I tend to opt for a text being readable rather than literal. This is one issue I have with Schmidt. I've seen some pretty ridiculous translations in the spirit of being literal, which frankly don't add anything.

One that comes to mind (I don't remember if this was from Schmidt himself, but I definitely heard it from Alan White) calling a retrograde planet a "planet moving backwards in degree". What does that add to the meaning of the word?

I don't see the point of calling a sign a "zoidion", or even calling the planets by their Greek names. These changes don't add anything to astrology. In the case of "zoidion" I'd probably make a footnote or comment about it an introduction.

What happens is when you read the text, instead of increasing your knowledge, it jars you out of the text. It calls attention to itself, when it shouldn't. We all know Jupiter was called Zeus in Greek. If I said Zeus is joined with Aphrodite, it doesn't make me any smarter in Hellenistic astrology than if I said "Jupiter conjunct Venus".

Knowing the origins of our terminology is important, and I fully support it. However in the texts, most of these literal translations don't help.

Now in the case of this new Valens translation, I entirely understand where Andy is coming from, and I don't have a problem with it. Right now I'm working on a relatively complex translation, and I've thought a lot about this issue myself.

What I'm doing is letting the text stand as it is, and am writing commentary. However, I'm not letting completely unknown terms stand un-noted in the main text. For instance I translated the word synderesis as "conscience", placed a footnote saying the original word was "synderesis", and will write more about it in the commentary.

I also am using common astrological terms, since it's my feeling that astrological terminology are also technical terms we all use. There is no reason to call an angle a "cardine", when we already know what an angle means. I also don't call a square a "quadrant", even though the Latin is "quadratum".

You also have to make decisions like: do I keep the original sentence structure even when a sentence is 250 words? Do I make paragraphs where there are none? If the writer happens to write in a convoluted way, do I clarify the sentence?

So, there are ways to deal with very complex or even ancient uses of words without knocking a modern reader out of the text, and still remain faithful. Again this comes down to the translator's philosophy. I can't see why Andy expanding on what a complex word means, makes the text unfaithful to its meaning, which is basically the main purpose of translation.

Mithra6 wrote:I translate Latin, and I can say especially with esoteric texts, that there are certain keywords used specifically for philosophical and esoteric texts. These keywords sometimes look like words we use in everyday life, but carry more complex meanings (such as Plato's "forms"). Other times the words might be unfamiliar such as synderesis, which can be seen as a sort of conscience.

There are also words that the ancients used that can literally be translated into a modern word that might make sense, but don't carry the same meaning. An example is the Latin termini for term. Today we often think of a term as a length of office like a politician, and while this still applies to a planet's term, the logic can be confusing for some.

These are questions all translators have to grapple with. I tend to opt for a text being readable rather than literal. This is one issue I have with Schmidt. I've seen some pretty ridiculous translations in the spirit of being literal, which frankly don't add anything.

One that comes to mind (I don't remember if this was from Schmidt himself, but I definitely heard it from Alan White) calling a retrograde planet a "planet moving backwards in degree". What does that add to the meaning of the word?

I don't see the point of calling a sign a "zoidion", or even calling the planets by their Greek names. These changes don't add anything to astrology. In the case of "zoidion" I'd probably make a footnote or comment about it an introduction.

What happens is when you read the text, instead of increasing your knowledge, it jars you out of the text. It calls attention to itself, when it shouldn't. We all know Jupiter was called Zeus in Greek. If I said Zeus is joined with Aphrodite, it doesn't make me any smarter in Hellenistic astrology than if I said "Jupiter conjunct Venus".

Knowing the origins of our terminology is important, and I fully support it. However in the texts, most of these literal translations don't help.

Now in the case of this new Valens translation, I entirely understand where Andy is coming from, and I don't have a problem with it. Right now I'm working on a relatively complex translation, and I've thought a lot about this issue myself.

What I'm doing is letting the text stand as it is, and am writing commentary. However, I'm not letting completely unknown terms stand un-noted in the main text. For instance I translated the word synderesis as "conscience", placed a footnote saying the original word was "synderesis", and will write more about it in the commentary.

I also am using common astrological terms, since it's my feeling that astrological terminology are also technical terms we all use. There is no reason to call an angle a "cardine", when we already know what an angle means. I also don't call a square a "quadrant", even though the Latin is "quadratum".

You also have to make decisions like: do I keep the original sentence structure even when a sentence is 250 words? Do I make paragraphs where there are none? If the writer happens to write in a convoluted way, do I clarify the sentence?

So, there are ways to deal with very complex or even ancient uses of words without knocking a modern reader out of the text, and still remain faithful. Again this comes down to the translator's philosophy. I can't see why Andy expanding on what a complex word means, makes the text unfaithful to its meaning, which is basically the main purpose of translation.

That's an enlightening post. Thanks.

Do you mind stating which text you are translating?

Hi Mithra6!

Mithra6 wrote:These are questions all translators have to grapple with. I tend to opt for a text being readable rather than literal. This is one issue I have with Schmidt. I've seen some pretty ridiculous translations in the spirit of being literal, which frankly don't add anything.

One that comes to mind (I don't remember if this was from Schmidt himself, but I definitely heard it from Alan White) calling a retrograde planet a "planet moving backwards in degree". What does that add to the meaning of the word?

The argument that Schmidt would make is, and I paraphrase, that the astrological terminology we currently use is actually merely astronomical. The underlying concepts are broken from the language and have to be brought in as another cognitive act. By keeping close to the actual language used, which has meaning already embedded into itself, our astrological thinking can come alive.

Mithra6 wrote: I don't see the point of calling a sign a "zoidion", or even calling the planets by their Greek names. These changes don't add anything to astrology. In the case of "zoidion" I'd probably make a footnote or comment about it an introduction.

The problem here is that sign doesn't have the meaning(s) that zoidion carries. The Latin signum is better, but our modern use of sign has had its meaning bleached out, astrologically speaking. Calling the planets by their original names is done partially as an affectation and partially out of respect.

Mithra6 wrote: What happens is when you read the text, instead of increasing your knowledge, it jars you out of the text.

More that it jars you out of whatever you were thinking was supposed to be in the text in the first place, namely whatever previous ideas you have already decided upon. Schmidt might not favor this metaphor, but it is definitely a "beginner's mind" sort of thing.

As for this new translation of Valens, it does seem really florid, and I do wonder what sort of angle the translator is coming from, but the more the merrier as long as it isn't really off.

I do also wonder what it is you're translating and when that will be out? Good luck, I know it isn't an easy thing to do.

Hi Mark!

Mark wrote:While I can see the motivation for your critique of this work surely all efforts to present an authentic hellenistic astrology today could be described as 'neo-hellenistic'?

I would say no, though my objection hinges on the use of neo-, or modern, as they have a close connotation, that of something that is both new and different than what was done before. This is certainly not what Robert Schmidt is trying to accomplish, which is the restoration of the original system of Hellenistic astrolgy, something decidedly not new and different than what was done before. Now, when he has brought that out, then any sort of newer development upon that foundation could be considered a neo- or modern Hellenistic astrology, but not before that has taken place.

David Roell of Astrology Center of America is selling Gehrz' translation, and in his commentary briefly compares it with the forthcoming Riley/Roell edition. Interested readers can look here: http://astroamerica.com/ancient.html#g112

Therese, thanks for the insights. The Gehrz translations of Valens and Porphyry's Introduction to Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos are available at amazon.com, as well.

Sometimes, for those of us who do not read Latin or Greek, let alone have expertise in philology, pairing up two (or more, if available) translations is really valuable; especially if these are critical editions. Where the translations agree, there's smooth sailing. Where they disagree, then we can learn where the trouble spots are in the original text and treat them with caution.

Also, even where the old Loeb Classical Library translations (Manilius, Ptolemy) might contain errors, they are at least indexed, which is a huge help when trying to locate a specific topic. The topic of slaves is but one example.

I agree with Mark about neo-Hellenistic astrology. It has merit in horoscope interpretation for today, but there is understandable slippage in interpreting 1800-year old texts in their own historical context. The topic of slaves is but one example.

GR wrote: The argument that Schmidt would make is, and I paraphrase, that the astrological terminology we currently use is actually merely astronomical. The underlying concepts are broken from the language and have to be brought in as another cognitive act. By keeping close to the actual language used, which has meaning already embedded into itself, our astrological thinking can come alive.

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.

GR wrote: The problem here is that sign doesn't have the meaning(s) that zoidion carries. The Latin signum is better, but our modern use of sign has had its meaning bleached out, astrologically speaking. Calling the planets by their original names is done partially as an affectation and partially out of respect.

I can understand that, though I like to think of a translation as if the writer wrote for today's audience. While this isn't always literally possible, that's how I try to imagine it. Sometimes the text is just difficult no matter what, but I don't like to bludgeon people with it.

GR wrote: I do also wonder what it is you're translating and when that will be out? Good luck, I know it isn't an easy thing to do.

I'm working on a new translation of Agrippa's "Three Books of Occult Philosophy". Most of the rough draft is finished. I'm in the editing phase.

Here is a couple of examples of what I'm talking about:

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.

However on the other side, Agrippa tends to heavily quote other writers, often without saying he's doing it. It's just there. This means astrological terms are often called several different things depending on who he's quoting. He quotes from the Centilloquy attr. to Ptolemy, Al-Kindi, Alchabitius, Leopold of Austria, Tetrabiblos, Ficino, Manillius, Macrobius, and several others - each who have their own style. For example in one place Agrippa says that "decans" are the ones based on the Hindu system, and "faces" are what we are used to in Western astrology. In other places, the terms are interchangeable.

What do you do in those cases? I've opted just to use the common terms and make it easy.

waybread wrote: I agree with Mark about neo-Hellenistic astrology. It has merit in horoscope interpretation for today, but there is understandable slippage in interpreting 1800-year old texts in their own historical context. The topic of slaves is but one example.

http://www.antislavery.org/english/slav ... fault.aspx

Considering that slavery is very much alive and well, unfortunately, I'm not seeing the "slippage".