skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

The Hermetic Lots
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
librafeng



Joined: 04 Sep 2009
Posts: 6
Location: China(PRC)

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

maybe Hermetic Lots(except fortune and spirit) are 3-body lots.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 478

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

Quote:
maybe Hermetic Lots(except fortune and spirit) are 3-body lots.

Intereting! Let me meditate on this...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tom
Member


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 3510
Location: New Jersey, USA

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Why were they created? What is the theoretical and practical motivation for creating these Lots (i.e. why have them in the first place?)


Give John Frawley’s approach some thought:

[NOTE: The article (On the Architecture of the Soul, The Astrologer’s Apprentice Issue No. 22) is lengthy and a bit complex. Obviously much comes before and after the following quote. I’ll fill in a couple of things for clarity in brackets followed by my initials. Other parenthetical statements are the author’s .

NOTE 2: The quotes have some oddities such as the bold type for one paragraph and capitalization where none is required that I suspect were done accidentally by a typesetter and/or were errors not caught in proofreading. I reproduced it faithfully without resorting to the dreaded (sic) in case I was wrong]


Quote:
We calculate Arabian Parts from the planets, and therefore assume that the Parts are derived from the planets. This is false logic. Consider: we find bloodstains and we find fingerprints. From this we deduce who dunnit. This does not mean that the bloodstains and the fingerprints created the murderer. The murderer created the bloodstains and the fingerprints. So our calculation of Arabian Parts from the formula planet A + planet B does not mean that planets A and B create that Part.

We have got this the wrong way round. I suggest that the reality is the reverse of our assumption: it is the Arabian Parts that create the positions of the planets. The planets derive from the Parts not the Parts from the Planets.

This means that within the central box of the chart [i.e. the box inside the traditional square chart – tc] we have an arrangement of Arabian Parts. This arrangement is, as it were, the chart of the soul itself. This soul chart then creates the external chart with which we are so familiar. Being the chart of the soul which is born into the life this pattern remains static throughout the life with the unfolding arrangements of planets in Return charts and progressions playing upon it. This is entirely congruent with that crucial astrological statement, Plato’s Myth of Er.


The Myth of Er is the very last chapter of the Republic and is worth some discussion on its own. Read it. It is short and profound whether we take it as astrological or not.

Frawley is also referring to Lilly’s practice of taking the natal part of fortune, and placing it in solar return charts in the same place, i.e. the same arc from the ASC as the nativity. For example let’s say the POF falls in the 4th house 97 degrees from the ASC in the nativity. After calculating the solar return chart for any year, count 97 degrees from the ASC and read the POF as it were there in the return chart. Frawley is also suggesting we do that for progressions for the reasons stated in the above and include the other parts derived from fortuna. He continues:


Quote:
In this myth [i.e. the Myth of Er – tc] the soul waiting to be born selects a life. It then carries the life to the Fates, who check their ephemeris to find the time and place at which the celestial spheres are aligned in the way that will produce the personality necessary for the living of that chosen life and the check the Returns and progressions to confirm that the life will unfold as ordered [Obviously, Plato doesn’t express the idea in precisely this manner-tc]. In our terms, the soul has its own chart (the life its nature led it to choose) and is born at the one time and place that will enable it to live out that life (the positions of the birthchart therefore deriving from its own inner chart). This is why the arrangement of Parts remains static through all the return charts: the soul remains as it is with the life unfolding around it and impacting upon it.


The article continues with explanations of the 7 parts, plus a discussion of the differences in how Paulus calculates a couple of them. This is in turn is followed by the example of King Edward VIII and his decision to abdicate the throne. Frawley’s theological approach is on display somewhat, but the astrology is good even if the approach is unorthodox.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Deb
Administrator


Joined: 11 Oct 2003
Posts: 4130
Location: England

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Levente

I wanted to thank you for such a thoughtful contribution. I’m sure you realise we don’t agree on every little detail, but you made so many interesting points that I wish I had more time to comment. There seems to be a lot of really good material coming out, or about to come out, about the lots (and Chris, I have to confess that I directed one of my students to your youtube video on how Fortuna is calculated, when she had problems with the theoretical conception of it – it does explain it better than all my careful words!)

I don’t know if members are generally aware of this but Dorian Greenbaum obtained her doctorate from the Warburg Institute on this topic and I hope it won’t be too long before that is released for publication. Without trying to make any of her arguments for her, I know she also discusses the fact that the term ‘lot’ conveys the philosophical notion of the daimon, so that the lots are representative of our ‘lot’ or allocation in life. Its very interesting, but beyond my ability to summarise.

I’m afraid I’m with Ptolemy in that I can’t raise a passion for this subject myself. I think Ptolemy’s disinterest was simply down to the fact that he was an extremely knowledgable astonomer, who could accept that astronomical cycles convey astrological significance, but held little interest in astrological concepts which have no astronomical correlation. I understand that because I also feel that what we see in the sky should present the focus of meaning in the chart. A couple of weeks ago I discussed this with Guiseppe Bezza, who favours the use of the lots whereas I don’t. Bezza believes that astrological meaning can only be given to things which are visible, so I made the argument that the lots are not visible, and he made the argument that they are mathematical relationships of things that are visible and so they count. I can accept that, but I still become dispassionate everytime I try to use them. They seem to be so mathematical, and lack the colourful detail of myth and cultural symbolism. So I don’t have much to contribute to this thread even though I have read some very very impressive discussions of the subject. I was treated to a copy of Steven Birchfield’s research some time ago and I know that his understanding of the subject is filled with expertise. I hope it won’t be long before he can make that more widely available.

As for John Frawley’s views, the reference has been given, but I think we have more knowledgable authorities on this subject in the forum and contributing to this thread! It would be a real waste, I think, to overlook the opportunity to discuss this matter directly with those who know so much, through the hullabaloo that will grab the attention if we get sidetracked into the controversy over whether the planets derive the parts or the parts derive the planets, and what JF might or might not mean by that obtuse statement anyway. More informative material is being put forward, so I hope this thread manages to stay on topic and develop the points that are able to be clarified.

Deb

PS - is there a Lot of Patience? (because apparently I don't have it) Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With his permission, I'd like to flesh out Robert Schmidt's idea, alluded to by librafeng, that the Hermetic Lots, outside of Fortune & Spirit, are in fact composed of 3 planets.

I'll use modern algebra to exemplify, as while the Hellenistic peoples didn't have modern algebra, they certainly had arithmetic and could show the same logic, if they were so inclined to do so. They would also understand proportion, as in geometric analysis.

The basic idea is that the "Spirit Lots", those of Victory and Eros, always take the diurnal formula expressed by Paulus, while the "Fortune Lots" always take the nocturnal formula; the Lots of Fortune and Spirit themselves always reverse according to the sect of the chart, again according to Paulus & others.

For "Spirit Lots", let's see the Lot of Eros, by day:

    Eros=Asc + Venus - Lot of Spirit
    Eros=Asc + Venus - (Asc + Sun - Moon)
    Eros=Asc + Venus - Asc - Sun + Moon
    Eros=Venus - Sun + Moon

Now following Schmidt's formulation, by night:

    Eros=Asc + Venus - Lot of Spirit
    Eros=Asc + Venus - (Asc + Moon - Sun)
    Eros=Asc + Venus - Asc - Moon + Sun
    Eros=Venus - Moon + Sun

Now, if we to follow the instruction in Paulus "literally"(which I'd argue isn't truly literal in the common sense) and reverse the formula in the manner of the formulas of Fortune and Spirit, we would get this:

    Eros=Asc + Lot of Spirit - Venus
    Eros=Asc + (Asc + Moon - Sun) - Venus
    Eros=2 * Asc + Moon - Sun - Venus

Now, we see that the Asc drops out of the formula altogether in the diurnal formula, and yet it both remains and is doubled in the nocturnal formula, following the general opinion of the formulas. This creates an extremely erratic motion in the Lot when it is "contrary to sect", which we can see offends the proportion & stability both the Lots of Fortune and Spirit exemplify. It is also, IMO, just plain ugly nonsense.

Now, if we really took Paulus' instruction literally for a nocturnal chart, and calculate the Lot of Eros "in reverse", taking the distance from Venus to the Part of Spirit and then subtracting from the Asc, we'd get this:

    Eros=Asc - (Lot of Spirit - Venus)
    Eros=Asc - (Asc + Moon - Sun - Venus)
    Eros=Asc - Asc - Moon + Sun + Venus
    Eros=Venus - Moon + Sun

Following this approach leads us to the same result as Schmidt's formulation demonstrates.

Those of you not math-averse can continue on with the other Lots and see how this goes. Another interesting exercise would be to tally up the differences between both formulas and see just how out of all bounds the "literal" definition plays out. If it were much less erratic, I could see how they could be compared to the natural movements of the Sun and Moon, but the extreme eccentricity of the contrary to sect Lots invalidates this analogy.


Last edited by GR on Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:09 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Thu Jul 22, 2010 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deb wrote:

I don’t know if members are generally aware of this but Dorian Greenbaum obtained her doctorate from the Warburg Institute on this topic and I hope it won’t be too long before that is released for publication. Without trying to make any of her arguments for her, I know she also discusses the fact that the term ‘lot’ conveys the philosophical notion of the daimon, so that the lots are representative of our ‘lot’ or allocation in life. Its very interesting, but beyond my ability to summarise.


I've heard similar things from Bob Schmidt, and I'm curious to see Greenbaum's take on the daimonic issue. Twisted Evil

Deb wrote:

I understand that because I also feel that what we see in the sky should present the focus of meaning in the chart.


I'd probably argue "What are we seeing when we look at the sky? Is it the flame or the smoke from the flame?" /platonizing

Deb wrote:

More informative material is being put forward, so I hope this thread manages to stay on topic and develop the points that are able to be clarified.


Agreed.

Deb wrote:

PS - is there a Lot of Patience? (because apparently I don't have it) Smile


I'm still curious if you had the Lots of Baguettes. Smile

Gabe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 478

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

I've always wondered (and still wondering) why the ancients didn't stick to the same symmetry for the seven planetary Lots (or Hermetic Lots). What I mean is that to turn the all the planets simultaneously (according to primary motion) until the sun is aligned on the ascendant (diurnal chart) or until moon is aligned to the ascendant (nocturnal chart) and simply say that where turned Venus is, is the Lot of Venus, where turned Saturn is, is the Lot of Saturn, etc. Why the inclusion of the Lots of Spirit and Fortune for the other Hermetic Lots?

Well, as mentioned before presently I only use Lots of Fortune, Spirit and Eros (from among the Hermetic Lots). I am not comfortable using the rest of the Hermetic Lots due to conflicting philosophies as well as very limited practical explications by traditional and modern astrologers. The reason for Eros to be included is simply because I am testing Brennan's method. I will not use any astrological techniques whose philosophies are inconsistent and I will advocate strongly those that are consistent as well as practical. Although Eros is among the Hermetic Lots that falls in the category of the "inconsistence" (which formula, whether to reverse or not, etc.), at least it has been partially shown by Brennan to work in practice - so I am testing it for practical reasons. This is also what I like about Frawley. Although I strongly disagree with some of his philosophical arguments, he does have a number of interesting practical methods that I can immediately test and use e.g. what he calls "mundane conjunction" where the Lots can be used to time events in solar and lunar return charts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris Brennan



Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 193
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a video that I made a few months ago using Delphic Oracle which shows how the speed of the five planetary Hermetic lots change based on the sect of the chart:

http://www.hellenisticastrology.com/video/SpeedOfHermeticLots.mp4

This is how the lots are supposed to move according to the calculations presented by Paul and Olympiodorus - and also partially in Abu Ma'shar and Bonatti as well (they use different calculations for Eros and Necessity).

The 'fluctional' nature of the lots, which you can see in the above video, is a large part of what Schmidt objects to, because it doesn't make 'sense' to him that they should be so erratic. Gabe reiterates this position with his statement that

Quote:
This creates an extremely erratic motion in the Lot when it is "contrary to sect", which we can see offends the proportion & stability both the Lots of Fortune and Spirit exemplify. It is also, IMO, just plain ugly nonsense.


In my paper on the Hermetic lots I attempted to provide a rationale for why the lots are slow during one part of the day and then fast during the other. The rationale seems to involve the Sun being dominant in the calculation for the slower moving lots and the Moon being dominant in the calculation of the faster moving lots, with the dominant luminary shifting by day and night. Basically the faster moving lots are mimicking the swift movement of the Moon, while the slower lots are mimicking the Sun. The full explanation is in the paper that Mark linked to earlier, so I wont repeat it here: http://www.chrisbrennanastrologer.com/Brennan-Theoretical-Rationale.pdf . Suffice it to say, there is a compelling rationale underlying the differing speeds of the lots, and the reversals make sense within that context.

What Schmidt's 'correction' does is it effectively erases this distinction, and it makes all lots move the same speed by getting rid of the reversed formulas that are outlined by Paul and the rest of the authors. So, instead of reversing the formulas as it says to do in the texts, you only use the diurnal formula for Eros and Victory, and you only use the nocturnal formula for Necessity, Courage and Nemesis.

While I don't dismiss the elegance of Schmidt's calculations and the ratios involved, I don't think that it is right to attempt to rewrite the astrological tradition just because something doesn't make 'sense' to you, or because something looks weird. In my opinion, this is what Schmidt has done in this instance.

I would have been fine if he just said that the calculations presented by Paul, Olympiodorus, Abu Ma'shar and Bonatti didn't make sense to him for X reason and said that X solution works better in practice and makes more sense to him. There is nothing wrong with that. People do it all the time. But instead Schmidt has gone to great lengths in order to try to argue that his correction constituted the original set of calculations, by trying to instill a false sense of uncertainty about what the texts actually say.

In doing so I feel that he has abused his authority as a translator, by telling those who follow his work that there is an ambiguity in the text when there is not. As a result, most people who follow Schmidt's work on the lots are under the mistaken impression that there is some sort of textual issue with Paul's Introduction because it doesn't match Schmidt's formula, and that Olympiodorus is an idiot, because he demonstrates the calculation of Eros in a way that explicitly contradicts Schmidt's argument.

I have great respect for Schmidt and the work that he has done, and I think that he has accomplished some amazing things in the past two decades, and I hope that he continues to do so in the future. I probably have a greater appreciation for the importance of his work than most. But I think that he has gone astray with this argument, and I find the lengths with which he has gone to support it disturbing, because it makes me worry about other areas of his work where similar issues may be at play.

If we are going to recover the tradition then we have to stay true to what the texts say, and we have to understand them on their own grounds before we start imposing our own views onto them. If we deliberately decide to deviate from the tradition once it has been restored then that is fine, because at least the baseline from which we are deviating from will have been established. But if we simply try to rewrite the texts from the start then the entire project to revive the tradition will have been pointless, as we will have simply become innovators rather than restorers, and we will be no closer to the ancient traditions than when we started.
_________________
My website:
http://www.chrisbrennanastrologer.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
astrojin



Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 478

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello,

To Chris:

Very well said! Vey well indeed!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we are looking for textual support for Schmidt's interpretation of the Lot of Eros algorithm in Paul, one interesting place is Dorotheus, and his Lot of Marriage, whose formula is the same as the emended Lot of Eros.

From the Pingree translation wrote:
Calculate the lot of wedding by day and by night from the Sun to where the Moon is, and add it to the degrees of Venus [by day] or subtract it from where Venus is [by night] thirty at a time; wherever it reaches, there it is.


To put it into an algebraic format:
    diurnal Lot of Wedding=Venus + (Moon - Sun)
    nocturnal Lot of Wedding=Venus - (Moon - Sun)

Now let's look back at how the Lot of Eros algorithm in Paul is reduced to a three-planet lot independent of the Asc both by day and by night according to Schmidt, and simply regroup the terms:
    diurnal Eros=Venus - Sun + Moon = Venus + (Moon - Sun)
    nocturnal Eros=Venus - Moon + Sun = Venus - (Moon - Sun)

This parallels with Dorotheus perfectly, and I think it asks the question "Where could such a Lot come from, if not from the Hermetic Lot of Eros?" And if we are arguing about upholding tradtion, consider that Dorotheus wrote considerably earlier than Paul and was closer to the original sources of the tradition.

Gabe


Last edited by GR on Fri Jul 23, 2010 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

steven wrote:

It is very much human nature that when we don't understand something through our native logic and knowledge, we rewrite it in a such a way so that it makes sense to our own faulty knowledge and logic.


It is also very common to mortal men that they carry their own preconceptions with them, and use them as a glass to peer with and a pen to write.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 5040
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello All,

I just wanted to thank all the contributers to this thread to date. Some really great posts. Thanks! I could you list you all but it would sound like a speech at the Oscars. Very Happy

Wow! I had no idea this topic would stimulate all this passionate discussion!

I am a total agnostic on the calculation dispute that seems to be opening up here. I am frankly too ignorant to have a firm view on the topic.

I do think its great though that two outstanding astrologers: Steven Birchfield and Dorian Greenbaum will be offering publications on this subject.

I have got a lot out of Steven's posts (no pun!) on this topic already and his radio online interview with David Hernandez last year on the Lot of Fortune and Spirit. Up to then I hadn't really appreciated the Platonic themes that can be brought out not just into the Lots but astrology in general. The posts from Levente and Tom have also followed up the important philosophical dimension of the topic.

I am so glad to hear Dorian Greenbaum will also be sharing her years of painstaking research in a full publication at last. I had the great good fortune to hear Dorian speak at the History of Astrology Conference in London some years back. Her topic was the Daemon and the Fates in Greek astrology and it was a spellbinding talk.

I will leave others to their different interpretations of the arithmetical logic regarding the lots Wink I am going to dig out my copy of The Republic out and read that. I think that might give me more insight at this point than any amount of astrological technique regarding additional lots. Once Steven and Dorian's books appear I will take a fresh look at the additional lots. For now I think the only Hermetic Lots I will be working with are the Lot of Fortune and Spirit.Very Happy However, the discussion is interesting. Please continue with your thoughts and insights on the Hermetic lots or the lots in general. Thumbs up

Thanks

Mark
_________________
‘’As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity…’’ William Lilly
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Chris Brennan



Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 193
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GR wrote:
If we are looking for textual support for Schmidt's interpretation of the Lot of Eros algorithm in Paul, one interesting place is Dorotheus, and his Lot of Marriage, whose formula is the same as the emended Lot of Eros.

...

This parallels with Dorotheus perfectly, and I think it asks the question "Where could such a Lot come from, if not from the Hermetic Lot of Eros?" And if we are arguing about upholding tradtion, consider that Dorotheus wrote considerably earlier than Paul and was closer to the original sources of the tradition.

Gabe



This isn't textual support for Schmidt's calculation. It is another lot that has a different name and purpose which has a similar calculation as Schmidt's 'corrected' lot of Eros. It is a lot for marriage though, not the Lot of Eros.

There is evidence in an appendix in the critical edition of the Book of Aristotle that Pingree and Burnett published that Dorotheus may have followed the same lot tradition as Valens for the Lot of Eros. This would make sense since the two display a very similar approach to a number of techniques, for example such as the trigon lords of the sect light and the Lot of Fortune. If Dorotheus used the same calculations as Valens for Eros and Necessity then he may not have been familiar with the Hermetic lot tradition preserved by Paul at all, and thus this would not support Schmidt's conjecture about the calculations underlying the set of Hermetic lots in Paul.

In fact, there is no evidence for the calculations of the Hermetic lots outlined by Paul prior to the 4th century, basically prior to Paul's own text. The earlier tradition only seems to have known about the Eros and Necessity lots of Valens that only involve the distances between Spirit and Fortune, and these are the ones that show up in the Greek horoscopes.

We are left, then, in the position of having to rely on Paul and Olympiodorus as the only two Hellenistic representatives of that particular tradition of lots, as well as Abu Ma'shar and Bonatti as representatives of that tradition during the Medieval period.

Spirit lots and questions about what they authors mean by 'the reverse' aside, the question that you have to answer is this: if the texts explicitly say that you should count from the planet to the Lot of Fortune for the Lots of Nemesis and Courage, how can Schmidt possibly claim that the text is supposed to say the opposite? You guys are just going to reject that because it offends your aesthetic sensibilities?

I started out using Schmidt's correction for the Hermetic lots early on in my studies of Hellenistic astrology, as that is the default in Delphic Oracle, and in one of my early lectures on the subject I even advocated the use of Schmidt's correction for Eros. I spent about a year trying to justify the argument at one point, and searching the Hellenistic literature for evidence that would support Schmidt's correction. Eventually I had to concede that I couldn't find any though, as there was no way to justify the argument based on the existing textual tradition, which almost entirely consists of Paul, Olympiodorus, Abu Ma'shar and Bonatti.

The argument is not supportable, and anyone who picks up a translation of any of those four authors and reads the section on how to calculate the Hermetic lots will immediately see why. If you read those translations and you see the author advocating one calculation by day and one calculation by night that involves reversing the points counted from and to, then Schmidt is wrong. However, if you read the translations and you see the author advocating only one calculation that does not change by day or by night, and only involves counting from the Lot to the planet involved, then Schmidt is correct. Anyone can do this. It does not take a seasoned classics scholar. I encourage you all to do it, and to make up your mind about the matter on your own.
_________________
My website:
http://www.chrisbrennanastrologer.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris Brennan



Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 193
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Posted: Sat Jul 24, 2010 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is in Book 4, chapter 25, sentences 13 and 16 in Pingree's edition, in the chapter on the handing over and taking over of the four lots. Pingree has the two sentences bracketed as not belonging there for some reason, although if you look on page 202 of Kroll's edition you'll see that he didn't bracket them. Presumably Pingree had Paul's lot calculations for Eros and Necessity in mind, and that is why he bracketed these calculations as not belonging, although it seems like kind of a strange mistake to make when those particular calculations do show up in the horoscopes, and then later in Abu Ma'shar and Bonatti. Unfortunately he doesn't give any notes on the critical apparatus to help explain why he departed from Kroll there.

Because it was bracketed by Pingree, Schmidt didn't include the two sentences in his original translation of Book 4 of the Anthology in 1996. I wasn't aware of the calculations in Valens until Dorian Greenbaum pointed it out at the last Blast astrology conference in September of 2008. I don't think Schmidt remembered those sentences as being omitted by that point either, because the initial response that I got from the Hindsight people when I asked about it was negative, that Pingree had bracketed it and it didn't belong. By November of that year when Schmidt did the lot workshop he seems to have accepted the calculations as being legitimate though. And for good reason, because that was always one of those really annoying questions when you read the Anthology - why Valens only ever mentions Eros and Necessity of the Hermetic lots, and why he never mentions which calculation to use (i.e. the normal calculation that is in Paul, or Schmidt's correction). It turns out that Valens isn't connected to Paul's lot tradition at all, although he does appear to have been one of the sources of the later Medieval tradition for those two lots. So, that provided a huge missing piece for the later lot tradition that had been unexplained up to that point, at least for those of us who had been relying on the translations.

For those who don't have the Greek text but do have Schmidt's translation, the calculation for Eros is tacked on to the very end of the paragraph on profections from Eros in chapter 25 of book 4:

"Take the Lot of Eros by day from the Lot of Fortune to the Lot of Spirit and the same (distance) from the ascendant, but by night the reverse."

λαμβάνεται δὲ ὁ κλῆρος τοῦ ἔρωτος ἡμέρασ μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ κλήρου τῆς τύχης ἐπὶ τὸν τοῦ δαίμονος καὶ τὰ ἴσα ἀπὸ τοῦ ὡροσκόπου, νυκτὸς δὲ τὸ ἀνάπαλιν. (Valens, Anthology, IV, 25: 13, ed. Pingree.)

The calculation for the Lot of Necessity is similarly given at the very end of the paragraph on profections from that lot in the same chapter:

"Take from Spirit to Fortune, but by night the reverse."

λάμβανε δὲ ἀπὸ δαίμονος ἐπὶ τύχην, νυκτὸς δὲ τὸ ἀνάπαλιν. (Valens, Anthology, IV, 25: 16, ed. Pingree.)

I'm not sure if these translations are entirely grammatically correct because I just did them on the fly, so I wouldn't quote them without checking them with someone first, but that is basically what the sentences say.
_________________
My website:
http://www.chrisbrennanastrologer.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GR



Joined: 14 May 2005
Posts: 451
Location: USA

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are countless lots that have different names but the same formulae, so what difference does that make? It only says that Dorotheus likely got the same lot from a different source than Paul, and one that knew what reversal meant in that instance. Since it reduces to exactly the same version as in Dorotheus in Schmidt's way, why is this not evidence?

What difference does it make that Dorotheus also knew the other version of the Lot of Eros? The issue is what reversal means in the case of the version of the Lot of Eros found in Paul, and whether the Lot of Marriage in Dorotheus is derived from such a formula.

My initial question was not what "tradition" did it come from, but how could such a lot as that in Dorotheus come about in the first place. Schmidt argues that three planet lots can be understood to derive from a lot taken from a two planet lot and some other planet. This implies that the Lots, at least initially in astrology, are constructed logically, though they are obscured by priestly formalism.

Gabe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 3 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated