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

Hello,

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

Intereting! Let me meditate on this...

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]

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:

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.

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)

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.

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.

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)

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

Gabe

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.

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/vid ... icLots.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

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/B ... ionale.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.

Hello,

To Chris:

Very well said! Vey well indeed!

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

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.

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.

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 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. However, the discussion is interesting. Please continue with your thoughts and insights on the Hermetic lots or the lots in general.

Thanks

Mark