Skyscript Astrology Forum

This is a follow up to the discussion on the Gehrz translation of Valens in the News, Notices, Books section of this forum.

It's going to be very valuable having a properly published version of Riley's translation of Valens (Astrology Classics, The Astrology Center of America) to compare with Schmidt and Gehrz. I'm waiting for the printed text because I believe that Valens is important enough to pay the cost for an attractive well published book with an index. From what I've seen, the Riley translation is quite close to Schmidt, and can be relied upon. It's often more readable as well. So if anyone regretted not having the Schmidt translation (only partly complete), I believe the Riley translation will be accurate enough, though missing Robert Schmidt's and Rob Hand's notes.

I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the Gehrz translation, although the layout and use of white space make it easy reading. Here's an example of an important translation difference between Gehrz and Schmidt/Riley:

Riley:
"Aries is by nature watery, with thunder and hail. From its first degree to the equinox, it is stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive. The middle degrees up to 15 degrees are mild and fruitful...."

Schmidt:
"Aries is watery in nature, full of thunder, hail. More particularly, the first parts up to the equipartite [place] are full of thunderstorms, hail wind and destruction; the middle parts up to the 15th degree are temperate..."

Schmidt includes this note: "Obviously here we are not dealing with a tropical zodiac in which zero Aries is assigned to the vernal point." (Rob Hand follows with more extensive notes on that point.)

But, here is Gehrz: "In regards to the nature of the weather, the constellation of Aries is watery. It produces thunder and can at times produce granular like hail. If we divide the constellation of Aries in half, then the first half would indicate a more windy and thundery rain, the kind that can be destructive and deadly. The middle degree through the last fifteen degrees are more temperate..."

We can easily see in Gehrz: No mention of the equinox! This is a curious omission and a critical point in the translation. This passage in Schmidt and Riley leaves no doubt that at least in this part of the text, a zodiac is indicated that doesn't begin at the spring equinox.

It's obvious in all the translations that Valens mixes traits of the signs with characteristics of the constellations, including extra zodiacal constellations that co-rise with the twelve signs. There is much to sort out, and Gehrz attempts this in her own way by interchanging the terms constellation and sign.

It would be interesting also comparison with translation:

Vettius Valens, Bl?tenstr?u?e, trans. Otto Sch?nberger und Eberhard Knobloch, Subsidia Classica, 7, Scripta Mercaturae Verlag, St. Katharinen, 2004.

It is a complete translation of all nine books.

Petr wrote:It would be interesting also comparison with translation:

Vettius Valens, Bl?tenstr?u?e, trans. Otto Sch?nberger und Eberhard Knobloch, Subsidia Classica, 7, Scripta Mercaturae Verlag, St. Katharinen, 2004.

It is a complete translation of all nine books.

Here it is (p. 5): 'Der Widder ist von Natur aus w?sserig, auch donner- und hagelhaft. Der Reihe nach sind die ersten Zeiten bis zur Tag- und Nachtgleiche regnerisch, verhagelt, windig, verderblich. Die mittleren Zeiten bis zum 15. Grad sind gem??igt, was folgt ist pestilenzialisch f?r Vierf??ler.'

Hi Martin,

Thank you for publishing.I have only 8 and 9 part of book.

Petr

Martin Gansten wrote:Here it is (p. 5): 'Der Widder ist von Natur aus w?sserig, auch donner- und hagelhaft. Der Reihe nach sind die ersten Zeiten bis zur Tag- und Nachtgleiche regnerisch, verhagelt, windig, verderblich. Die mittleren Zeiten bis zum 15. Grad sind gem??igt, was folgt ist pestilenzialisch f?r Vierf??ler.'

In english?

Bitte


james

Petr wrote:It would be interesting also comparison with translation:

Giuseppe Bezza translated these pages on signs too Of Aries he says "L?Ariete ha natura acquosa, porta tuono e grandine. Le sue prime parti, fino all?equinozio, portano pioggia, grandine, vento, sono devastanti; i gradi intermedi, fino al quindicesimo, sono temperati..."

"Aries has a watery nature, brings thunder and lightning. Its first parts, up to the Equinox, bring rain, hail, wind, are devastating; the intermediate, up to the 15? are temperate. "

I'm not Schmidt adept, but I don't like at all this new translation by Gehrz. It's wordy as only modern astrology can be....

margherita

jerd wrote:In english?

Bitte

It agrees perfectly with Riley's translation. The mention of the equinox is there.

Martin Gansten wrote:

jerd wrote:In english?

Bitte

It agrees perfectly with Riley's translation. The mention of the equinox is there.

Danke sch?n! Martin

james

I don?t yet have a copy of Andy Gehrz?s new translation of Valens so I can?t comment on that, but this point of reference to the equinox interests me and what follows relates to that. I see why this appears to hold a critical point of translation, but I?m not sure it helps to establish whether Valens, in his general chart work, employed an equinox-initiated tropical zodiac, a tropical zodiac which simply does not have the vernal point at the beginning (as Cyril Fagan suggested), or a sidereal zodiac, (as Robert Schmidt leaves open to question - see his footnote 7 on p.8 of his book I and Rob Hand?s introductory comment on p.ii).

It seems likely to me that Valens ? in keeping with other authors - replicated details from an older source in a way that clumsily combines details that are supposed to relate to the signs with those that are supposed to relate to the constellations. Hence, at the start of the passage where Valens describes the nature of Aries (I.2) he clearly appears to be talking about the sign where he defines Aries as ?fiery? and tells us that it is a tropical and ascending sign (these descriptions would only apply to a tropical zodiac view). But at the end of the passage he appears to be talking about the constellation where he gegins by defining Aries as ?watery?.

Unfortunately, ancient authors did'nt show great concern about clear distinction between signs and constellations, at least not where they described their associations. Even in Ptolemy?s Tetrabiblos there are numerous comments that could be used to suggest he was a sidereal astrologer if we did not also have his clear explanation of the logic of how the circle of sign divisions begins. Ptolemy also presents similar information to Valens in regard to the weather effects of the constellations, although in a more summarized form. Whereas Valens includes this alongside sign-descriptions, Ptolemy orders the material differently and put this in his second book dealing with the general effects of mundane events. See Tetrabiblos, II. 11 in the Robbins edition:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... C*.html#11

To compare:

Aries according to 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.

Aries according to Valens
Schmidt:
"Aries is watery in nature, full of thunder, hail. More particularly, the first parts up to the equipartite [place] are full of thunderstorms, hail wind and destruction; the middle parts up to the 15th degree are temperate [while the following parts are scorching and especially pestilential]* for quadrupeds (* restored by comparison with Hephaistio)
Riley:
"Aries is by nature watery, with thunder and hail. From its first degree to the equinox, it is stormy, full of hail, windy, destructive. The middle degrees up to 15 degrees are mild and fruitful...."

Taurus according to Ptolemy:
The sign of Taurus as a whole is indicative of both temperatures and is somewhat hot; but taken part by part, its leading portion, particularly near the Pleiades, is marked by earthquakes, winds, and mists; its middle moist and cold, and its following portion, near the Hyades, fiery and productive of thunder and lightning. Its northern parts are temperate, its southern unstable and irregular.

Taurus according to Valens:
Schmidt:
It is a calm zoidion. By parts, from the 1st degree up to the 5th degree, the place around the Pleiades, it is undistinguished, destructive, pestilential, thunder-causing, productive of earthquakes and thunderbolts and generative of lightning. The next two degrees are fiery and full of fog; the parts on the right near Auriga are temperate, cooling, the parts on the left are undistinguished and excite motion, and are sometimes chilling, other times scorching; the head, up to the 23rd degree has temperate air, but pestilential and destructive of living things; the [following] are destructive, undistinguished, full of pestilence.

Riley:
It is calm. From its first degree to 6? (the section of the Pleiades) it is worthless, even destructive, disease-producing, thundering, causing earthquakes and lightning flashes. The next two degrees are fiery and smokey. The right part (toward Auriga) is temperate and cool. The left parts are worthless and changeable, sometimes chilling, at other times heating. The head (to 23?) is in a temperate atmosphere, but it causes disease and death for living things. The rest is destructive, worthless, disease-ridden.

The references to the fixed stars makes it clear that Ptolemy is presenting summary information that relates to the constellations, even though Robbins translated the title of that passage as ?Of the Nature of the Signs, Part by Part, and their Effect upon the Weather.? The jumbling up of signs and constellations is so widespread in this sort of literature I close my eyes to it.

Wouldn't it be more informative to look at the details of where, for example, Valens describes the Pleiades as being around the 5th degree of Aries? This is a point that needs careful checking but from the quick glance I just made with Janus software this appears to match with the position of the Pleiades according to the tropical zodiac around the time that Valens wrote. But that?s not a very careful check, so I could be wrong and hopefully someone can look into those kinds of references. But this still leaves us to ponder what we can establish for certain if the material was not unique to Valens. Since astrology has a long history of authors reproducing material from earlier sources, sometimes uncritically, we might never get more than enough information to know we can?t know anything for sure!

Deb wrote:I?m not sure it helps to establish whether Valens, in his general chart work, employed an equinox-initiated tropical zodiac, a tropical zodiac which simply does not have the vernal point at the beginning (as Cyril Fagan suggested), or a sidereal zodiac, (as Robert Schmidt leaves open to question - see his footnote 7 on p.8 of his book I and Rob Hand?s introductory comment on p.ii).

Unless it can be shown that Valens definitely knew about precession, he may not have understood the difference between a sidereal and a tropical zodiac, but simply believed (like so many others) that the zodiac was fixed with regard both to the seasons and to the constellations. What we can say for certain is that Valens' zodiac was not defined as beginning with the vernal equinoctial point.

Wouldn't it be more informative to look at the details of where, for example, Valens describes the Pleiades as being around the 5th degree of Aries? [My correction: Taurus.] This is a point that needs careful checking but from the quick glance I just made with Janus software this appears to match with the position of the Pleiades according to the tropical zodiac around the time that Valens wrote.

Around the time that Valens wrote there would have been very little difference (or almost none, depending on the fiducial star used) between sidereal and tropical values; and as the Pleiades furthermore consist of several stars, I am not sure how helpful this passage will be.

I think it is unlikely that Valens (or many competent astrologers of the time) did not know about precession; although whether he cared is another matter. From the text of Geminos knowledge of precession appears to be fairly basic astronomical information long before the time of Ptolemy. If there is a serious argument for Valens using a sidereal frame of reference I don?t see it - by this I mean a division of the zodiac that is based on star-positions and not a standardised division of the Sun's path.
The comment by Rob Hand in the footnote to Schmidt?s translation of Valens reads ?It is usually considered (by Cyril Fagan et al.) that this is a tropical zodiac which simply does not have the vernal point at the beginning? (n7, p.8). If this is the case, then the main contender was what Geminos describes (I.9) as the "Chaldean system" rather than the "Greek system" which measures 0 Aries from the equinox. So even though the sidereal and tropical zodiacs were closely aligned at that time, the 8? displacement is significant enough for us to check whether Valens was using the conventional approach of the Chaldeans rather than Greeks. This is what I was thinking could be checked if someone has the interest and the time.

Geminos wrote (around 1st/2nd century BC):

?The two solstices and the two equinoxes occur, in the thinking of the Greek astronomers, in the first degrees of these signs, but in the way of thinking of the Chaldeans, they occur in the 8th degree of these signs? There is no difference between the Greeks and Chaldeans except in the division of the signs, since the first points of the signs are not subject to the same convention for them: among the Chaldeans, they precede by 8 degrees. Thus, the summer solstice point, according to the practice of the Greeks is in the first part of Cancer, but according to the Chaldeans, in the 8th degree. The case goes similarly for the remaining points.? (Geminos?s Introduction to the Phenomena by Evans and Berggren, p.115)

Deb wrote:I think it is unlikely that Valens (or many competent astrologers of the time) did not know about precession; although whether he cared is another matter.

I have to disagree with you here, Deb. The dissemination of knowledge in the ancient world was not very fast or efficient, and in fact many astrologers well into the Middle Ages appear to have been blissfully ignorant of precession (and some believed in trepidation instead).

From the text of Geminos knowledge of precession appears to be fairly basic astronomical information long before the time of Ptolemy.

It was known since Hipparchus; the question is to whom (and to how many). We have discussed this before: as far as I can see, astrologers and astronomers were generally two different groups even in Hellenistic times. Ptolemy, writing on both topics (though in different works), seems to have been something of an anomaly.

If there is a serious argument for Valens using a sidereal frame of reference I don?t see it - by this I mean a division of the zodiac that is based on star-positions and not a standardised division of the Sun's path.

I don't think anyone would suggest that Valens used the actual constellations. The normal 'sidereal frame of reference' since the 5th century BCE would have been a 'standardized division of the Sun's path' determined by one or more fixed stars. (There would have been no reason to place the beginning of Aries randomly at 8? before the equinox.) Of course, the Babylonians did not know about precession, so to them the zodiac was simultaneously 'sidereal' and 'tropical' -- although obviously they thought the stars somewhat more important, as they chose not to put the equinox at 0?.

As for Valens, James Holden's paper on The Classical Zodiac covers the actual horoscopes cited by Valens, which Holden says agree with the 'Perpetual Tables' based on a fixed (that is, sidereal, or not moving with the equinoxes) zodiac. I haven't checked, but I see no reason to doubt him.