Study Notes: Valens Anthology

RohanMenon

This quote

I think the Riley translation is missing an 'and'. If it's a day chart and both luminaries are not in dominant positions above the Earth and none of the above conditions apply, then the Ascendant is the Predominator.

clarifies things quite a bit.

Thanks Minderwiz.
 

Minderwiz

Rob Hand provides the following summary:

The Sun is the Predominator if

- It is in the first and the Moon is in 12th
- It is in the eleventh and the Moon is in the 10th
- It is in the seventh and the Moon is in the 8th
-It is in the eighth and the Moon is in the seventh (8th is succeedent, Moon is setting)
- It is in the 4th and Moon is in the ninth (4th is angular ninth is cadent)
- It is in the 5th and Moon is in the ninth (5th is Post Ascensional ninth is cadent)

The Moon Predominates:

- If it's in the first and Sun is in 9th
- If it's in the second and Sun in 9th (second is Post Ascensional to first)
- If it's in the tenth and Sun in the 9th
- It's in the 11th and Sun is in the 9th.
- If it's in the fifth and Sun is in the 9th.

Bu day the Sun in an angle always predominates The Sun in the ninth often yields to the Moon. Generally the Sun will predominate by Day and the Moon by night unless the sect light is cadent.

Sun in 9th and Moon in 9th Horoskops predominates
Sun in 12th Moon in 12th MC predominates
Sun in 3rd Moon in 3rd - MC predominates

(Valens was one of the few authors who allowed the MC to be the Predominator, most simply kept to the Ascendant as the default when the Sun and Moon were badly placed)

Sun in 5th Moon in 9th - First to aspect the Horoskopos predominates
Sun in 7th Moon in 7th - Degree of New Moon predominates
Sun in 1st Moon in 1st - Degree of New Moon predominates
Sun in 4th Moon in 4th - Degree of New Moon predominates

Sun in Libra cannot predominate unless conjunct the Horoskopos
Moon in Scorpio cannot predominate unless conjuct the Horoskopos
Moon under the beams cannot predominate unless conjunct Horoskops

Although this list isn't fully complete the general point is that the Predominator will be the light that is stronger in terms of house placement , sect and to a limited extent sign.

It's also likely, though not certain that the houses referred to are not Whole Signs but the system described in Chapter 2 (which is what we now call Porphry)

Note: Even though the Moon can be the Predominator when the Sun is above the Horizon, or the Sun can be the Predominator when it is below the Horizon, this does not mean that a day chart can become a night chart, or vice versa. The Sun above the Horizon always denotes a day chart. and Sun below the horizon always denotes a night chart.
 

Minderwiz

Nechepso and Petosiris

The above rules are not universal to all Hellenistic Astrologers. you will find variations in the analyses of Length of Life analyses by virtually every other Astrologer.

This seems to be because they all seem to have used common sources either directly or indirectly. These are texts attributed to writers who used the pseudonyms, Nechepso (an ancient pharoh) and Petosiris (an ancient priest). These texts seem to have been written perhaps two hundred years or more before Valens, who occasionally quotes from 'the King' But it seems these texts were not as clearly spelt out as they might have been, leaving much open to interpretation. These texts are lost to us, all we know about Nechepso and Petosiris is from quotes and references from Valens and others. Indeed it's quite possible that Valens even believed that the ancient Pharoh was the true author of his source text.


So it's likely that Valens and others were trying to make sense of these texts and giving their version of what the 'true' position was. A similar situation occurs several hundred years later when there were similar attempts to make sense of Ptolemy (who also probably had access to Nechepso and Petosiris texts).

This process would have been complicated by copying errors, translation errors, (at least for Ptolemy, Dorotheus and Valens, all of whom influenced early Medieval Persian and Arab Astrology). There were also interpolations, where translators and commentators added their own understanding, as though it were part of the original text.
 

RohanMenon

this is *much* clearer

Thanks again Minderwiz
 

Minderwiz

Thanks again Minderwiz

You're welcome!

I don't want to diverge from Valens and go into other writers, that way leads to confusion on a grand scale But just be aware that what Valens says isn't totally agreed by everyone else. He's more mainstream though than Ptolemy, so he's a good typical Hellenistic Astrologer and his book is really unparalleled as a source.

Have a good break from the internet (If that's possible) and in a week's time you'll be back in the land of quadrant houses - but only used for planetary strength, not for topics.
 

CosmicBeing

just wanted to say hello and that I am starting to read these study notes. See how it helps me understand more.

:livelong:
 

Minderwiz

You're more than welcome CB.. I hope you get something out of it. Don't be afraid to ask questions about anything you don't follow and if you've not got the translation just drop !E a PM with your email address and I'll send you a copy
 

CosmicBeing

Thank you! I don't have a copy and I was just thinking about needing one so I can follow better. So definitely will take you up on the offer. I been reading your thread and this thread. I am on page 2 of this thread.
 

CosmicBeing

Valence says the 11th place starting from the LoF is the "place of accomplishment, the bestower of Goods especially if the benefics are in place or aspect"

A brief description for each planet being in this place or aspecting it, or ruling it

Sun, Jupiter and Venus being in this place provide gold, jewellry, and very great property, as well as gifts from kings

The Moon and Mercury (in this place) brings ups and downs of livelihood, bringing changes and sometimes making men liberal and generous, at other times needy and burdened with debts. This happens because the Moon waxes and wanes (so is changeable) and Mercury shares the qualities of good and bad (depending on how he is situated in the horoscope and with whom, a known astrological fact).

Mars takes away what was gained and possessed, causing reductions, thefts, burning, trials, confiscations for royal and public use, or proscriptions and condemnations. If the nativity is in government (??) or otherwise distinguished, men will become successful from violent or dangerous action, or from theft provided that Mars is in his proper (see Minderwiz's previous post for a good definition of 'proper') place. Even then Mars makes this occupation risky and can cause losses.

Saturn when configured in proper place makes men rulers of estates and property. If out of sect and in the wrong places brings disaster, ruin, poverty, shipwreck, debt.

Saturn and Mars at MC or rising after MC indicates exile. Valens says that it is not just the Stars influencing this place that determines the outcome, but the sign itself (no examples)

My takeaway - after examining and interpreting the Lots of Fortune and Diamon from an overall life perspective, look at this place (the 11th from the Lot of Fortune) and interpret it as a 'place of fulfilment'.

I know this may be an odd question. I don't have the copy of the book yet...so maybe the answer is already in the book.

I have seen this method when reading up on traditional astrology where they will make a lot of fortune chart where the chart is turned where the lot of fortune is. So if Lot of fortune is in 4th house... then 4th house will become 1st house for the fortune chart.

Anyway...my question is....say one of these planets is the ruler of Lot of Spirit and they sit in 11th house from lot of fortune, so does that change the meaning of any of these planets especially let's say Mercury considering the qualities could be good or bad?

I don't have a chart for example just because it's a theoretical question.

I'm just beginning reading both of your notes. So maybe you two have already discuss this possibility and I haven't come across it yet.
 

CosmicBeing

Minderwiz... I need you to lend some of the history knowledge you hold.

Illiterate comes up in old writing. I know what illiterate means, but in modern times and in the 1st world country....there are still people that go to school and come out not knowing how to read or write. I have seen that. But, it is few, but still can be a good percentage. Now could illiterate mean something different for this day and age vs back when valens wrote about it? Could illiterate also mean/including someone who doesn't gain knowledge through writings or books? There are people out here that can read and write, but they gain their knowledge through word of mouth than through books and writing.