 |
Definitions and Foundations. Vol. 2 of The Astrological Record of the Early Sages
(TARES), (www.projecthindsight.com) Cumberland, MD: Golden Hind Press. (2009)
Retail Price: $145 softcover - $155 hardcover
Subscriber Price: $40 softcover - $55 hardcover
Reviewed by Joseph Crane
Most people want a "bottom line" when they read a review.
After a preliminary reading and study of Definitions and Foundations, I have found this book to be the most interesting and exasperating astrological work I have read in a very long time. I appreciate the hard work done by Robert Schmidt and Project Hindsight to produce this large and complex work. I hope that many of its conjectures and assertions prove to be correct.
I will discuss the context for Definitions and Foundations, its style of presentation, and some of its content. What ties these matters together in a basic question for traditional astrologers: how do we know what we know about the traditions we use?
First we need to ask ourselves about our primary sources for the astrological tradition we use For modern astrologers this is not as much of an issue.
The basic text for many traditional astrologers is William Lilly's Christian Astrology, perhaps supplemented with writings from some of his contemporaries like Gadbury and Culpepper. In addition, one can also work with astrologers whose works have been translated from the Latin, such as Guido Bonatti, Ibn Ezra, Johannes Schöner and Johann Kepler, or even touch upon the eighteenth century. Although traditional astrologers have different areas of emphasis, all have common sources for their astrological understanding and craft.
Those who desire to work with earlier Hellenistic sources have more problems. Many works have been translated unreliably (Firmicus) or are difficult to practice from (Ptolemy), or have somewhat questionable dating (Dorotheus). Ancient authors often did not present their material systematically and clearly. Even if they had, many of their notions seem foreign - or incomprehensible - to the modern astrologer. Accompanying any translations from the Hellenistic material must be insightful and useful commentary.
In the mid-1990's Project Hindsight stepped in to help solve these problems by having expert astrologers doing the translating and commenting. Translators added many useful commentaries that helped open up new dimensions of astrological understanding. Although it originally translated Latin as well as Greek texts, within a few years, only translations from the Greek by Robert Schmidt remained.
Until the publication this year of Definitions and Foundations, very little had come from Project Hindsight for some years. During this time I continued to find previous translations from Project Hindsight valuable and used them for my own work. Others like James Holden and Dorian Greenbaum have proceeded with their own translations and writings.
Robert Schmidt's premise, following the late David Pingree's conjecture, is that Hellenistic astrology was established by one person or a small group of people. Although its original work was lost, one could reconstruct an Urtext, a foundational source for the later tradition, from later citations and commentaries, combined with creative reconstruction. In this view, the originator or originators of Hellenistic astrology had to have been philosophically sophisticated to come up with an astrology with such a strong philosophical context.
Schmidt's vision has important virtues and potential flaws. On the one hand it has allowed him to approach the Hellenistic astrological material in a serious and insightful manner, pursuing the material closely until it finally yields its underlying structures. This can lead to a completely new perspective on ancient and on modern astrology. On the other hand, it may also invite one to force-fit some things together, ignore parts of the tradition that vary with preconceptions, divide Hellenistic astrology into the "authentic" and the "deviant" and misrepresent the nature of astrology as part of syncretic Hellenistic philosophy and culture.
Over the past several years Schmidt has been working on Definitions and Foundations and this year it has finally come out. The book is Volume Two of thirty (30!) books that will contain definitive translations of and commentaries on the works of Hellenistic astrology. Definitions and Foundations gives an understanding of the astrological terminology that future translations can build upon.
Definitions and Foundations derives from an incomplete work, a Byzantine summary of an earlier work by a person named Antiochus. Schmidt adds definitions and explanations from similar passages by Porphyry, Rhetorius and others. (An early translation by Project Hindsight attributed to "Antiochus of Athens", The Thesaurus, is actually a compilation by Rhetorius of the sixth century of an earlier text by Antiochus. Schmidt uses it here under the label "Rhetorius"; this text also appears as Rhetorius the Egyptian by James Holden.) Cobbling material from these authors and a few others, Schmidt presents his best attempt, in his view, at restoring a lost original.
Who was Antiochus? James Holden'sA History of Horoscopic Astrology and a previous translation by Project Hindsight reflect a common understanding: the author is an Antiochus of Athens from the second century. Schmidt thinks that this could be actually Antiochus of Ascalon, founder of the Platonic Middle Academy in the second century B.C.E. This is a very interesting conjecture and a potential bombshell.
No writings by the philosopher Antiochus of Ascalon survive. As Schmidt notes in a CD accompanying this book, it would be indeed ironic if the surviving writings by this philosopher were astrological. However tantalizing this possibility may be, there is only circumstantial support: the authorities Antiochus cites are all before the Christian era, and there is some material in Antiochus that has a Platonic spin. Valid evidence of a link between this work and Antiochus of Ascalon would be an outstanding contribution to our understanding of the transmission of the philosophy and the astrology in the Hellenistic era.
Now, let us move on to the texts themselves. However, before going any further, I need to address the writing style of this work. I quote a paragraph on page 122 in its entirety.
It is a striking consequence of the distribution of domiciles and exaltations among the seven planets that each of the two domiciles of a planet will have exactly the same joint domicile masters as long as we take the two lights Helios and Selene as equivalent. Thus Hermes and Kronos are the joint domicile masters along with Aphrodite for the Bull, but they are also the joint domicile masters with Aphrodite for the Balance. Again, Helios and Ares will be the joint domicile masters for the Archer along with Zeus, but Selene and Ares will be the joint domicile masters of the Fishes along with Zeus. Similarly, Zeus and Ares will be the joint domicile masters with Selene, but these same two planets are the joint domicile masters of the Lion along with Helios. And so forth.
Note: this is not primary text but Schmidt's commentary. The primary texts are even denser.
The language for both translation and commentary is highly stylized and difficult to get through at the beginning and this book contains over 350 pages of it. (Becoming accustomed to the facsimile edition of Christian Astrology may be more difficult.)
When we read Schmidt's commentary above slowly, here's what we get.
- Taurus has Venus as its domicile lord; the lords of the signs of its triplicity (or trigon) are Mercury with Virgo and Saturn with Capricorn.
-
Venus, when she is in Libra, has that triplicity's domicile signs also governed by Mercury (Gemini) and Saturn (Aquarius).
- For Sagittarius the other lords with Jupiter are Mars (Aries) and Sun (Leo).
- For Pisces the other lords with Jupiter are Mars (Scorpio) and Moon (Cancer).
(You may also notice that there is no mention of our standard elements of air, fire, water, and earth. The elements were not part of the standard thinking about triplicities in the ancient world - they seem to have emerged later.)
You will notice above that the names for signs are English versions of the original words. (This requires that Schmidt renders Capricorn "Goat-Horned") The names for the planets are not Latin but Greek. (This forces some adjectival awkwardness like "heliac" instead of "solar" and "seliac" instead of "lunar".) Schmidt insists that all this is necessary to render not just words but the mind of the original tradition.
Two words appear in the text that may cause the reader to wince: Schmidt translates astrological "sign" not into z?idion as in previous translations but into "image." He translates the word "degree" as in "7 degrees Aries" into "portion", so that he would render "by degree" as "portionally."
In the accompanying CD, Schmidt makes an important distinction between transliteration and translation. In the former, we adopt the previous word and bring it into our terminology: hence traditional astrologers use words "almuten," "hayz", "dustoria" and others. In this way, Schmidt contends, we add words to our astrological vocabulary but do not add an understanding of their meanings. A translation, on the other hand, will find an approximate semantic field in English to reproduce the original meaning of the word.
Schmidt finds hidden strata of meaning from original meanings of words: this is a feature of much continental philosophy that has influenced him. The alternative Anglo-American approach is that "meaning is use," plain and simple. One could liken this division to the philosophical controversies about "realism" and "nominalism" from the medieval era. If your approach is closer to Anglo-American nominalism, Schmidt's translations will drive you absolutely nuts.
As is clear from its title, Definitions and Foundations deals with important concepts in Hellenistic astrology. Here we find perspectives on rulership and dignity, much about the relationships between planets we call "aspects", a fresh analysis of the important concept of "spear bearing," a look at houses or places including an eight-fold formulation, harmonics and the Lot of Fortune. There is important material on determining the potency of planets and methods for finding different kinds of lords of a nativity. Some of this material displays a fascinating continuity with the later medieval tradition.
Clearly there is much in Definitions and Foundations that is important and worth spending time with and this will provide the interested reader much to research and ponder.
To my mind the most interesting writings in Definitions and Foundations concern aspect doctrine. Up to this time we have not had a clear understanding of how the Hellenistic astrologers thought of aspects or how they used them. We know that they were interested in sign-to-sign contacts between planets but this yields a large number of planetary relationship relationships.
In Hellenistic astrology many words are used that relate to aspect and they are usually translated as "testify," "behold," "look forward", "scrutinize", "witness." How do all these words stack up with one another? What do all these words mean, anyway?
According to Schmidt's commentary in Definitions and Foundations, planets testify to each other if they are going to join each other in the zodiacal signs they currently occupy. This is the major class of what we would call "aspect." However, for two planets to be engaged with each other, for one planet to "look upon" or "watch over" other planet, for a true aspect to occur, the application must be within three degrees. As one planet approaches an exact aspect to another, they are in the process of "figure formation." The three-degree condition for aspects, as opposed to testifying, also seems straightforward.
I am not yet clear about how "testifying" is a weaker relationship than the more active "looking upon" or the other seeing-words. Yet Schmidt's reading of the doctrine seems straightforward. If this holds up it will be an important addition to our understanding of Hellenistic astrology.
To me the doctrines of aspect become murkier as we continue with its presentation. Schmidt feels that the confusion may be deliberate on the part of the original author. Much investigation needs to be done with this material.
I'll take one example. In Hellenistic astrology there is an aspect relationship called aktinobolia, translated by Schmidt as "striking with a ray." Here is definition thirteen by Antiochus.
"That a star strikes with a ray, the one leading the one following according to figure; for example, a star in the Ram strikes a star in the Goat-Horned with a ray, and in similar cases. The star following looks upon the one leading and overcomes it [in] moving toward it, but does not strike it with a ray; for, of every beam the sight moves backwards. Striking with a ray is said both zodiacally and proportionally." (p. 202)
The first sentence seems clear: proceeding along the signs of the zodiac, a planet in Aries leads a planet in Capricorn and the planet in Aries strikes the planet in Capricorn with a ray. This looks like a simple relationship between signs and their locations relative to one another. So far so good.
The second sentence states that the leading planet in Capricorn looks ahead to a planet in Aries and overcomes it (see definition 10), and the planet in Aries strikes it with a ray. Comparing planets in these two signs, the passage states, sight moves forward and the ray moves backward.
What is forward and what is backward that would account for sight and striking with a ray? Are we talking simply about the counterclockwise direction of the signs? Or, is looking ahead and striking with a ray really about what we would call applying and separating aspects? Or, are we discussing the "waning" half of a synodic cycle where the faster planet will also move toward the slower planet and the slower planet strikes with a ray? Different factors may apply.
Schmidt favors the possibility of the following planet applying to the leading planet, that the leading planet has more degrees in the zodiac than the following planet (p. 210). However, "overcoming" (it was previously translated as "predominating") may relate specifically to the second half of the synodic cycle between the two planets. Schmidt asserts that in the context of the other definitions (spear bearing, for example) striking with a ray is about figure-formation or application, yet the first sentence only mentions signs involved.
Schmidt posits that Antiochus, whoever he was, deliberately created interlinking definitions so that some definitions can only be understood in the context of others. The sequence of definitions is not an orderly exposition but a teaching manual to lead the student gradually to clarity. The student will have to work very hard at this, though.
Generally I do not find this kind of deliberate opacity in astrological texts. I do not know whether a closer investigation of this text will yield insight (whether one agrees or disagrees with Schmidt's specific conclusions) or muddle.
If the testifying and aspecting doctrines (including striking with a ray) are accurate as Schmidt presents them, he has given us an elegant and useful set of methods for understanding planetary interrelationship in ancient astrology. I would find this very helpful to my own astrological work. Some suspicions remain, though. One is a general concern about the whole work.
I find many of Schmidt's assertions plausible and I want them to be correct. How would we verify their validity?
We would need to look at the Greek grammar and Schmidt's translations very closely. There may be ambiguities in words denoting processes and states, so that "assuming a figure" may be less of a dynamic process than Schmidt contends.
We would also have to ascertain that others in the ancient tradition worked with aspects in the same way. Can this theory allow other primary sources of Hellenistic astrology become clearer and shed more light on the practices of other astrologers?
The real author and date of this work may not be such an important issue. Antiochus of Athens from the second century could have written down astrological practices that were already there. That would not make this text of any less practical value.
Could we use a text like this to determine an authentic Hellenistic tradition? Let's pretend that after some apocalypse all the records of our astrological culture were lost except for some fragments. However, the astrological works of one author - like Noel Tyl - survive in pretty good shape. Perhaps as astrological scholar from the distant future could present Noel Tyl's approach in a complete way and also note that his approach differs in certain ways from, say, Deborah Houlding or Liz Greene. If Schmidt can present Antiochus and others as a set of baseline doctrines and practices and note alternatives, that would be fine with me. It should not be a question of whose astrology is the "real" one; in the long run this only promotes dogmatic slumber.
Thirdly, do they result in techniques that an astrologer can use? We shall see. As a modern astrologer who wishes to employ Hellenistic concepts and techniques, I expect them to make my astrological work more accessible to accurate interpretation and prediction. If it is not the case, either our information about or understanding of the tradition is at fault. This is what differentiates my work and others from scholarship for its own sake.
On two occasions during his "talking tour" CD's, Schmidt remarked how little he has gotten from scholarship on Hellenistic astrology and how their contributions have been worthless and often misleading. He stated that if he had used lengthy citations and covered all his bases in terms of the conventions of scholarship his work would be twice as long and would have taken him far more than the five years he took to write it. This may well be. He also said that the purpose of scholars' lengthy citations mostly served for them to show off their erudition.
I disagree with this last notion. It also points to a major weakness in Schmidt's presentations here and elsewhere. The reason that people painfully cite sources and place their work within a community of scholars is for other people to replicate their research. If I am going to adopt some of Schmidt's assertions as true, whether it's the identity of "Antiochus" or the direction of an aspect ray, it is because I could go through the same process and check the same sources and come up with the same result.
Do I recommend Definitions and Foundations? As an astrologer who is inspired by astrology's ancient roots, I anticipate spending a lot of time and effort working with it. I add that going through and using Definitions and Foundations is a task only for the motivated. If you are so motivated, you can learn much from this book. I indeed recommend that you work with it - but not uncritically.
In part because there are so few available translations of the Hellenistic astrological literature, and in part because of the effort needed to produce Definitions and Foundations, I applaud Schmidt's new contribution to the literature on Hellenistic astrology. I welcome further contributions by him -- and by many others.
Joseph Crane
September, 2009
COMMENTS FROM THE ASTROLOGER'S FORUM [ Add comment ]
 |
Joseph Crane on Definitions & Foundations |
| posted by MarkC,
26-Sep-2009 11:00 |
|
I have been reading Joseph Crane's review of Robert Schmidt's translation of the Antiochus material entitled Definitions and Foundations
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rev_df.html
I just want to correct one misunderstanding Joseph Crane seems to have about Robert Schmidts views on the antiquity of the Antiochus text.
In particular when he states:
[quote:c6f6fcbcb6]Who was Antiochus? James Holden'sA History of Horoscopic Astrology and a previous translation by Project Hindsight reflect a common understanding: the author is an Antiochus of Athens from the second century. [i:c6f6fcbcb6]Schmidt thinks that this could be actually Antiochus of Ascalon, founder of the Platonic Middle Academy in the second century B.C.E[/i:c6f6fcbcb6]. This is a very interesting conjecture and a potential bombshell.
No writings by the philosopher Antiochus of Ascalon survive. As Schmidt notes in a CD accompanying this book, it would be indeed ironic if the surviving writings by this philosopher were astrological. However tantalizing this possibility may be, there is only circumstantial support: the authorities Antiochus cites are all before the Christian era, and there is some material in Antiochus that has a Platonic spin. Valid evidence of a link between this work and Antiochus of Ascalon would be an outstanding contribution to our understanding of the transmission of the philosophy and the astrology in the Hellenistic era[/quote:c6f6fcbcb6]
In fact I raised this particular point some time ago in a question to Robert Schmidt on the ACT Astrology forum. I was aware Robert Schmidt was suggesting a probable earlier date than David Pingree for the Antiochus material. I was therefore curious if Schmidt subscribed to the view of the historian Franz Cumont that this Antiochus was in fact Antiochus of Ascalon. I got the following reply on that specific point:
[quote:c6f6fcbcb6]As for Cumont's speculation that our Antiochus may have been Antiochus of Ascalon, sometimes regarded as the founder of the Middle Platonic Academy, I do not see how that speculation could ever be confirmed, although at this point I would be willing to bet that the material in the lost Antiochus original came directly from the Platonic academy.[/quote:c6f6fcbcb6]
So although Schmidt is not stating definitively that the Antiochus material was from Antiochus of Ascalon he is making the quite significant claim that he believes early hellenistic astrology emerged out of the Middle Academy. :shock:
Robert Schmidt has elaborated on this point in a further reply:
[quote:c6f6fcbcb6]My views on the philosophical background of Hellenistic astrology are more extreme than I have perhaps let on hitherto. At the risk of sounding like a madman, or at least in the interest of provoking discussion (smiley face in order here), I do not contend that Hellenistic astrology was simply influenced by the Platonic Academy, but rather that it was a product of the Middle Academy itself. I now regard Hellenistic astrology in its original form as "applied Platonic metaphysics". Furthermore, I believe that the original Hellenistic astrology had far more influence on later philosophical developments in Platonism than it was in turn influenced by them in subsequent centuries. I include Neo-Platonism in this assessment.
It continued... |
| |
|
Re: Joseph Crane on Definitions & Foundations |
| posted by Chris Brennan,
08-Oct-2009 2:46 |
|
[quote:7380ddf9af="MarkC"]I have been reading Joseph Crane's review of Robert Schmidt's translation of the Antiochus material entitled Definitions and Foundations
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/rev_df.html
I just want to correct one misunderstanding Joseph Crane seems to have about Robert Schmidts views on the antiquity of the Antiochus text.
[/quote:7380ddf9af]
I'm not sure that this is a misunderstanding on Crane's part so much as it is something that Schmidt has alluded to heavily but isn't invested in enough to fully argue for as a historical fact. Schmidt [i:7380ddf9af]does[/i:7380ddf9af] give the impression that he is trying to link Antiochus the astrologer and Antiochus of Ascalon in a number of his recently recordings though. If you listen to the end of the first lecture on the talking tour this is made quite explicit.
While he does dismiss Cumont's arguments, as well as Pingree's arguments, he then still makes a number of positive statements about how the text could have been written by Antiochus the Middle Platonist, and how it would be ironic of this was the only surviving text of that particular philosopher. It is somewhat unfortunate that he rejects Cumont's arguments so readily though, since the only evidence that he is really able to adduce for the Neoplatonic influence is his dimensionality argument, which falls somewhat short of establishing the direct link between Platonism and Hellenistic astrology that he has always sought.
What do people think of Crane's review besides that though? I thought that he was being pretty soft in the first half of it, and he kept qualifying his endorsements with statements like "if this holds up...", but then he kind of came out swinging in the second half, and ended making a few good points. It is interesting because this is the first analysis of the book in print at this point, as far as I know, and I haven't seen much critical discussion about it yet. |
| |
|
Re: Joseph Crane on Definitions & Foundations |
| posted by GR,
08-Oct-2009 20:21 |
|
[quote:93f56d435d="Chris Brennan"]
I'm not sure that this is a misunderstanding on Crane's part so much as it is something that Schmidt has alluded to heavily but isn't invested in enough to fully argue for as a historical fact. Schmidt [i:93f56d435d]does[/i:93f56d435d] give the impression that he is trying to link Antiochus the astrologer and Antiochus of Ascalon in a number of his recently recordings though. If you listen to the end of the first lecture on the talking tour this is made quite explicit.
[/quote:93f56d435d]
If there was an astrological system produced by the Platonic Academy of the Middle period, as Robert Schmidt believes is quite likely, then it makes sense to match up certain notable and essentially anoymous authors to members in this group, if possible. Antiochus is merely the most obvious one to start with, and has the benefit of previous speculation.
[quote:93f56d435d="Chris Brennan"]
since the only evidence that he is really able to adduce for the Neoplatonic influence is his dimensionality argument
[/quote:93f56d435d]
Well, the one bit of reasoning that he has publicly talked about recently, yes. And it's more Middle Platonism then Neo-Platonism, but that in itself is a subject of further analysis.
[quote:93f56d435d="Chris Brennan"]
What do people think of Crane's review besides that though?
[/quote:93f56d435d]
Most I got out of it was "Complex sentences are hard to read" and "More footnotes, please". The first I can accept if one doesn't have English as a first language, otherwise, read slowly is my sagacious advice. The second is frankly silly, as Robert Schmidt's process of research often is as follows:
[list:93f56d435d]1. Reading many, many texts, in their original language(s).
2. Thinking about them in great detail.
3. Publishing or discussing his conclusions at the time.[/list:u:93f56d435d]
How does one footnote this? |
| |
|
Re: Joseph Crane on Definitions & Foundations |
| posted by Chris Brennan,
13-Oct-2009 9:39 |
|
[quote:6f635d1c6c="GR"]
If there was an astrological system produced by the Platonic Academy of the Middle period, as Robert Schmidt believes is quite likely, then it makes sense to match up certain notable and essentially anoymous authors to members in this group, if possible. Antiochus is merely the most obvious one to start with, and has the benefit of previous speculation.
[/quote:6f635d1c6c]
Schmidt's (unexplained) rejection of Cumont's arguments negates any benefit from there being previous speculation, and in point of fact Antiochus isn't even necessarily the most obvious candidate for Schmidt's argument. The strange thing about Schmidt's attempt to implicate Antiochus of Ascalon is that the philosopher's known Stoicising tendencies run in direct opposition to Schmidt's rather knee-jerk rejection against all things Stoic. It seems a bit odd for Schmidt to attempt to insinuate a link between the astrologer and a philosopher who Cicero criticized as never deviating very far from Chrysippus, especially when Schmidt himself completely rejects that Stoicism had almost any formative influence on Hellenistic astrology at all.
[quote:6f635d1c6c="GR"]
Most I got out of it was "Complex sentences are hard to read" and "More footnotes, please". The first I can accept if one doesn't have English as a first language, otherwise, read slowly is my sagacious advice. The second is frankly silly, as Robert Schmidt's process of research often is as follows:
[list:6f635d1c6c]1. Reading many, many texts, in their original language(s).
2. Thinking about them in great detail.
3. Publishing or discussing his conclusions at the time.[/list:u:6f635d1c6c]
How does one footnote this?[/quote:6f635d1c6c]
So, your response to the question of why doesn't Schmidt use footnotes in his latest publication is something to the effect of "Schmidt reads and thinks too much to use footnotes"? Really? |
| |
|
|
| posted by Adam,
13-Oct-2009 12:20 |
|
Hello!
Well I have read both the review and the text itself several times. I think the implied question of Chris is what we think of the text itself, as speaking about the review without relating to the Summary is not possible. So I take the liberty and try to sum up my thoughts.
The review itself is good insofar it points out key characteristics of Schmidt's approach to the text, yet a glimmer of hope shines through the clouds set up by the Summary and Schmidt himself; while Crane does realize that the achievement is notable, he does also notice the difficulties that we as readers and interpreters have.
When I first read the text, I had the feeling that Schmidt is reading too much into the whole thing, and there were such subtle notions in some definitions, (like among the various versions of aspect doctrine) that I said, this can't be it. Schmidt seems to go a long way in ensuring the "holistic" philosophical view of the text, and of the Hellenistic astrology itself, but it just not feels natural. Yes, he gives us plausible explanations, but it's up to us whether we are satisfied with them.
To be totally honest, when I'm reading the text, I still can't get Nietzsche out of my head:"If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you". Somehow in some places the whole thing seems just forced. While I do not know enough to argue about Hellenistic astrology, I can still relate to it this way. And it's the only way I can relate to it. Yet I hope that Schmidt is right, and this is where I can follow Crane's arguments. The text is hard to understand. Schmidt is hard to understand too sometimes. He might be right, perhaps he [b:dd90c92ee2]is[/b:dd90c92ee2] right. But how could we know? Either more people take on the tedious task and start reading and translating Hellenistic texts, or we test the system itself (this step is always necessary). And here are my doubts again. I just can't see at this point, how this could be used. While in theory, these concepts are great. Philosophical, deep. But are they usable? I don't know.
Cheers,
Adam |
| |
|
|
| posted by CJ,
13-Oct-2009 17:06 |
|
It's maybe worth noting that the Sassanid and early Abbasid astrologers were in similar situations. They had a belief that some ancient Persian astrology had been scattered into neighbouring countries after Alexander and this motivated their translation projects (the book The Arabic Hermes goes into the background in more detail, they also had a doctrine of a separate Egyptian, Chaldean and antediluvian Hermes). But if they could not find much more than Valens, Ptolemy, Dorotheus and the Indian astrology how likely is it there is still some unknown surviving untranslated text explaining it all (Abu Mashar by the way seems to have adopted the Indian aspect strength doctrine in his solar revolutions, but with Ptolemaic aspects).
Perhaps it's also worth noting that in the Demotic/Egyptian horoscopes preceding Valens that have been found (Neugebauer) not even the Part of Fortune is mentioned (instead some unique angles). One wonders why they don't adhere more rigorously to the alleged "Nechepso-Petosiris" doctrine at least in this respect. |
| |
|
Re: Joseph Crane on Definitions & Foundations |
| posted by GR,
13-Oct-2009 17:34 |
|
[quote:851e14d328="Chris Brennan"]
... and in point of fact Antiochus isn't even necessarily the most obvious candidate for Schmidt's argument.
[/quote:851e14d328]
Odd that someone named Antiochus isn't the most likely candidate for someone named Antiochus, but I can see the plausibility that it could be a pseudonym. |
| |
|
|
| posted by Estebon_Duarte,
16-Oct-2009 2:04 |
|
I enjoyed Crane's review. I am a subscriber to Project Hindsight and enjoy their medieval translation track very much. I was however somewhat disappointed with the Definitions and Foundations, I realize it is part of a larger work to yet be released, but it is definitely more an attempt at creating a "new", "old" Astrology than being merely a translation series.
That by itself is fine if that were the stated purpose. My biggest beef is with the unbending dedication to changing Astrological language. I completely understand his argument, I just have a hard time believing a word like "circumambulations" is making things clearer. Of course this is how Crane's summed up my frustrations,
[quote:b0a14ab470]If your approach is closer to Anglo-American nominalism, Schmidt's translations will drive you absolutely nuts. [/quote:b0a14ab470]
I think over time the Hellenistic track will have merit, but I have yet to see delineations using any of these techniques, let alone predictions.
I found this part of Crane's review interesting,
[quote:b0a14ab470]On the other hand, it may also invite one to force-fit some things together, ignore parts of the tradition that vary with preconceptions, divide Hellenistic astrology into the "authentic" and the "deviant" and misrepresent the nature of astrology as part of syncretic Hellenistic philosophy and culture.[/quote:b0a14ab470]
I have noticed a habit of dismissal by Hellenistic astrologers of those things deemed "deviant", some of which are central to the medieval and renaissance traditions (which have been proven).
In all I think Crane's review was fair and good for someone to gain insight who isn't familiar with the background and intention of the PHASE series. |
| |
|
|
| posted by SGFoxe,
16-Oct-2009 23:03 |
|
"It's maybe worth noting that the Sassanid and early Abbasid astrologers were in similar situations. They had a belief that some ancient Persian astrology had been scattered into neighbouring countries after Alexander and this motivated their translation projects (the book The Arabic Hermes goes into the background in more detail, they also had a doctrine of a separate Egyptian, Chaldean and antediluvian Hermes). But if they could not find much more than Valens, Ptolemy, Dorotheus and the Indian astrology how likely is it there is still some unknown surviving untranslated text explaining it all (Abu Mashar by the way seems to have adopted the Indian aspect strength doctrine in his solar revolutions, but with Ptolemaic aspects). "
I'm quoting CJ mostly for a springboard from which to dive into my thoughts.
I believe one can find the katarche of Hellenistic astrology in Herodotus.
Note that the Magi -- the sacerdotal tribe of Medes -- prior to the Persian conquest of Babylon, attended sacrifices which were not effective without a Magian priest. But after the conquest of Babylon & Cyrus -- thanks to Daniel, captive priest astrologer of the Babylonian who left open the gates (this is kind of obvious if you read Herodotus & the relevant OT books -- Ezekial, Daniel, Nehemiah and the same time for a real mind blowing experience) and within context of the 70 weeks of astrology established the day for a year concept -- the 490 days of those 70 weeks are a Pl/Ne cycle -- and Daniel (via some fundy parsing of the text) predicted Christ.
However, the Magi which accompanied Xerxes had learned the Babylonian art of astrology -- why do you think Cyrus made Daniel Chief Magus???? -- the Magiian astrology as recorded by Herodotus -- well, it is very interesting -- the Magis eclipses interpretations were provably pandering to Xerxes hopes and dreams.,
That, the first Persian/Magiian historic interface with the Greeks culminated at the Pl/Ne opposition with Alexander, and was the katarche -- the fertilized seed -- of Hellenistic astrology -- which Alexander victorious march through Persepolis and consequent further interfaces with Persian modes of Babylonian arts henceforth flowered
Pingree gives the Magi/Persians short shrift. He states that the only contribution of Aryan astrology was the Ju/Sa 20 year cycle -- and incidentally, that is why the Magi were in Bethlethem observing their Star. -- parenthetically it is not magnetically fascinating that Ahmanidinijad is of Jewish ancestry -- changed his name. Sometimes Pingree cops to many Brahmin 'tudes ... I believe the Maga Brahmins were (are) of Magiian descent, which implies to me -- that, pre Jyotisa period, I think there was an interface between the Magiian astrologers and the Vedic, but the palm leaves have disintegrated. I also posit that this has something to do with the Solar and Lunar Dynasties of the Puranas.
I do not hold that Hellenistic astrology was the ultimate invention of one person, and suggest that Schmidt read and translate those passages of Herodotus.
Sonja |
| |
|
|
| posted by Olivia,
17-Oct-2009 3:24 |
|
A couple of things - the history as given in Daniel doesn't match history going outside the Tanach, so Daniel may have been an allegory about the dangers of assimilating too much into Greek society, using Babylon as the example. That one could help your case in a way I suppose, if you're looking to link Chaldean-Hebrew-Greek transmission. Except for Daniel ever being in Chaldea, but there was certainly a Babylonian captivity.
Second, the fundy timing parsing is way off if you go back to the Hebrew - everyone who translated (to the best of my knowledge), left out a nifty little punctuation mark, and ran the two weeks of years periods together when they were separate in the Hebrew. The first period of weeks of years predicted Cyrus as a messiah (which he was, Hebrew concept messiah anyway, not Greek concept messiah), and the second predicted Titus, afaik, or someone equally evil - which doesn't disqualify one from messiah-hood. That second part was all bad. No Greek messiahs to be found in any of those texts, at least not in the Hebrew.
The timelines (they were separate) went in weeks of years because of the controversy over keeping the shemittah year. |
| |
|
|
| posted by Eddy,
17-Oct-2009 9:28 |
|
[quote:d3f0c981d4]Daniel, captive priest astrologer of the Babylonian [/quote:d3f0c981d4]
I'm not sure if I can agree with this. Perhaps there is another source but I don't know of any other source about Daniël than the book Daniël and there no indication is given for Daniël being an astrologer.
More than that, Daniël 1:17 says that while all four men were given wisdom through books, God gave Daniël wisdom through dreams. In Daniël 2 this is confirmed by the story of Nebuchadnezzar's repeating dream but which he forgot when awake.
I think that this illustrates the biblical view (which actually can't be called pro astrological) that divine knowledge received of God about the future and about man's unknown to others thoughts supercedes that of astrology and other types of Babylonian divinatory methods. From a biblical point of view one can say that the Old Testament prophets did predict, but not through astrology. |
| |
| Add a comment to the forum |
|
| |
|
