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:
A Correct Prediction: the NYC buiding strike, 1991
by Robert E. Zoller
Book II of Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus
translated by David Pingree
Compiled by Deborah Houlding
Astrology and Cosmology in Early China: Conforming Earth to Heaven, by David W. Pankenier
Reviewed by Gill Zukovskis

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Concrete interpretations of the Lots in classical sources?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 963
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 10:38 am    Post subject: Concrete interpretations of the Lots in classical sources? Reply with quote

Chapter 48 of Rhetorius contains some very specific readings for various Lots, for instance:

- the Sun disposing the Lot of Injuries gives injuries to the heart;
- the ruler of the Lot of Fortune under the rays makes for a violent death;
- the Lot of Children in a sign of Saturn, Mars or Mercury and aspected by a malefic destroys the first-born, middle-born or youngest children, respectively;
- etc.

Without suggesting that such 'cookbook' interpretations should be taken at face value without consideration of other factors, I wonder if anyone knows of similarly concrete interpretations in other ancient or medieval sources -- that is, where the result of a placement is more specific than just 'good/bad'?
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
irisalbus



Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Posts: 74

Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am reading the Carmen Astrologicum written by Dorotheus of Sidon and the First Book and the first chapters of the Second Book of this work are full of specific meanings like the ones you mention.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Gansten
Moderator


Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 963
Location: Malmö, Sweden

Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks. It is years since I read Dorotheus, and I have no clear memory of its treatment of Lots. I'll go back and look.
_________________
http://www.martingansten.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 142
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 3:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Martin,

early discussions of natal topics often contain some treatments of lots: see Book II of Vettius Valens (various sources, including Abraham and Timaeus) and Hephaestio (almost entirely from Dorotheus), Book VII of Firmicus Maternus (various sources), several chapters of Book V of Rhetorius (from Dorotheus, Valens, the source of Firmicus and others) and Book III of the "Book of Aristotle" by Masha'allah (mostly from Dorotheus, with some material from Valens and Rhetorius). I believe you'll find a lot of useful material.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clelia Romano



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always understood when studying the Lots in Hellenistic astrology that they were " contributive causes" of such and such. I do not know what all of you think about it but Medieval astrology created so many lots( and gave different names to many of the existing ones) that it is difficult to understand the rationale undergoing behind the major parts of the Parts created.

I have been using regularly the Hermetic Lots, Exaltation, the Lot of Father, Mother, Children and the Lot of Death ( a Medieval one, Saturn +Cusp of 8th-Moon and the reverse in nocturnal charts). Some times it seems to me that as the saying goes, there are too much chiefs for few indians.

When I was reading Valens I tried some others suggested by him, including treachery and obtained good results considering only the position of them in the chart.

Anyway, the planet responsible for the sign that the Lot is in is important not only by placement ( in what topic house it falls) but by position( in a pivot or not) but by essential dignity.

I would like to know which Lots you are using sucessfully and what you think about this issue.
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 142
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clelia Romano wrote:
... and the Lot of Death ( a Medieval one, Saturn +Cusp of 8th-Moon and the reverse in nocturnal charts).


In fact this lot isn't Medieval but Dorothean as a verbatim quote from him in Hephaestio 2.25 shows. The only difference between the older, pre-early Arabic era and later usage is that originally it was counted from the Moon to the 8th sign (ie. whole sign house), as referenced by Dorotheus, Māshā’allāh, Rhetorius and Theophilus (the latter two making a mistake altering Saturn to the ascendant).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clelia Romano



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Levente Laszlo wrote:
Clelia Romano wrote:
... and the Lot of Death ( a Medieval one, Saturn +Cusp of 8th-Moon and the reverse in nocturnal charts).


In fact this lot isn't Medieval but Dorothean as a verbatim quote from him in Hephaestio 2.25 shows. The only difference between the older, pre-early Arabic era and later usage is that originally it was counted from the Moon to the 8th sign (ie. whole sign house), as referenced by Dorotheus, Māshā’allāh, Rhetorius and Theophilus (the latter two making a mistake altering Saturn to the ascendant).


Thank you for the answer :-) You are right. I found out the quote you were referring to. The origin of the formula was Hellenistic ( as frequently happens).
But as Alchabitius, Ibn Ezra (Beginning of Wisdon,145) and Bonatti followed Masha ´allah´s formula, and it was a bit different than the older one I supposed that it was a Medieval formula. In fact it may be a corruption or a new point of view. Medieval astrologers frequently adapted many of the Hellenistic ideas.
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 142
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Mon May 28, 2012 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the formula is the same (despite the erroneous version in Rhetorius and Theophilus), just some time in the 9th century counting with the degrees of quadrant houses comes into fashion.

Nevertheless, using the original sign-based versions and dismissing degrees altogether (for which I've introduced my rationale here) I see the indications of lots are rather reliable in my preliminary natal investigations. I've made some experiments with Fortune, Exaltation, Livelihood and the two distinct sets of Marriage-Union*, and they look promising. In horary practice, however, I abandoned using them after a short experimental period years ago as they proved to be superfluous.

* I believe we should be cautious with some lot formulae because they can be corrupt. For example, the Saturn-Venus formula for a kind of Marriage-Union is practically unanimously accepted but the edited (and translated) text of Valens 2.38 suggests Jupiter instead of Saturn. This can easily be a mistaken exchange of planetary symbols in the defective manuscripts of Valens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clelia Romano



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Levente Laszlo wrote:
I think the formula is the same (despite the erroneous version in Rhetorius and Theophilus), just some time in the 9th century counting with the degrees of quadrant houses comes into fashion.

I have to read Hephaistio again, maybe I misinterpreted the text.I´ll talk about it later , just now I´m excited to mention this question of " counting degrees"! I do not like it at all because if you use Alchabitius you get different degrees for the houses comparing to Placidus( sometimes the cusp of the house change signs). In my opinion the use of lots has a philosophical and very ancient origin and in those time whole signs were used to counting the position of the lots. I prefer in this case to use whole signs.


Quote:
Nevertheless, using the original sign-based versions and dismissing degrees altogether (for which I've introduced my rationale here)



Thank God I stopped writing to read your rationale! Very interesting and comprehensive study,indeed! But let me say that I feel no need of using whole signs for Fortune, Spirit and the other Hermetic lots, which are based on the wandering stars and in the Fortune or Spirit.
I feel uncomfortable using lots mixed with house´s portions others than the Hourmaker.

Quote:
I see the indications of lots are rather reliable in my preliminary natal investigations. I've made some experiments with Fortune, Exaltation, Livelihood and the two distinct sets of Marriage-Union*, and they look promising. In horary practice, however, I abandoned using them after a short experimental period years ago as they proved to be superfluous
.

Having a Medieval training I always felt that so many lots seemed like the use of a tarot deck between astrological teachings. Very Happy

Studying Hellenistic astrology however I reconcile with them, at least with the most relevant. But I do not use them in Horary, as well.
Quote:
* I believe we should be cautious with some lot formulae because they can be corrupt. For example, the Saturn-Venus formula for a kind of Marriage-Union is practically unanimously accepted but the edited (and translated) text of Valens 2.38 suggests Jupiter instead of Saturn. This can easily be a mistaken exchange of planetary symbols in the defective manuscripts of Valens.
[/quote]

I do not think Valens is suggesting to use Zeus in the passage you quoted: Valens 2.38
"Concerning Marriage, in a Different Manner
For men, from the Sun to Aphrodite and an equal amount from the Horoskopos; for women, from the Moon to Ares. For, Aphrodite and Ares are destroyers of both the lights because though the Sun is exalted in Aries it perishes in Libra and causes the days to lessen, and though the Moon is exalted in Taurus it is depressed in Scorpio and causes a subtraction of its light cosmically. Aphrodite, then, will be the marriage indicator for men, while Mars will in general be the indicator for women. When, for men it is necessary for the place of marriage to agree with the Spirit, but for women with the Lot of Fortune because of the conjugation and union of the Sun and the Moon. For in this way the sympathy and illegality of the marriage will be judged.
If, then, many stars should be present together upon the place of the marriage indicator, or should witness it, there will be polygamy. And if the stars should be entwined with the Moon while Zeus is testifying, they will be legally brought together. And if Kronos, they will be separated by death. And if Hermes should be apart from Zeus, he will be at fault with slaves. And if Zeus should witness Kronos, the marriage will be consecrated legally, or they will produce noble offspring
." Etc
As we see he is talking about witnessing, and not as a suggestion of any other kind of formula.
I think that Valen´s explanation is so full of symbolical meaning for using Venus and Mars! I´m curious about which of the sets of marriage lots do you found most reliable. I have some doubts about which to use. Perhaps the one using Venus and Saturn gives better results, but I´m not sure.
I have been using Fortuna with good results both as financial significator, and as Hyleg. Fortuna is useful to construct a chart departing from it, as you mentioned in other thread: it works like a charm!
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 142
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clelia wrote:
I have to read Hephaistio again, maybe I misinterpreted the text.


I'll give a translation for convenience:

Dorotheus of Sidon wrote:
Others, having counted from Mene (the Moon) to the eighth image from the Hour-Divider, gave them in turn from Kronos (Saturn).


Clelia wrote:
But let me say that I feel no need of using whole signs for Fortune, Spirit and the other Hermetic lots, which are based on the wandering stars and in the Fortune or Spirit.


I know the "Hermetic" lots quoted by Paulus enjoy wide popularity but I must say I'm seriously in doubt whether they are authentically Hermetic in the sense that they draw back to Nechepsos and Petosiris. A different formula exists for each of Love and Necessity (using Fortune and Spirit) used by earlier authors like Dorotheus, Valens and Firmicus Maternus (including papyrus horoscopes as late as the 4th century), and inferring Mercury into the notion of Necessity seems a little too far-fetched. Moreover, I suspect the original formulae devised by the possibly 4th century author of the All-Virtuous were the same at day and night, and it was Paulus who treated them in a different fashion.

Clelia wrote:
I do not think Valens is suggesting to use Zeus in the passage you quoted


I do, for there very passage I mean (2.38.51) is right before those ones you quoted (2.38.56-59). I'll also give a translation for that:

Vettius Valens wrote:
And count the nuptial lot in the following fashion: if the nativity is a daytime one, from Zeus to Aphrodite (the reverse in the case of night), and the same amount from the Hour-Marker.


The main MS, Vaticanus gr. 191 gives the planetary sign of Jupiter instead of that of Saturn but there isn't any parallel sources save for its apographs, therefore it can easily be a mistake.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clelia Romano



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Tue May 29, 2012 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I'll give a translation for convenience:

Dorotheus of Sidon wrote:
Others, having counted from Mene (the Moon) to the eighth image from the Hour-Divider, gave them in turn from Kronos (Saturn).


Thank you, Levente! I confused two different things. Perhaps because Bonatti suggests we to attend to the 8th sign from the Sun is diurnal figures and from the Moon in nocturnal figures, as one of the points to take into consideration to observe the potential Killing Planets, I was always with the Sun in mind instead of the Moon. I mixed things, sorry.

Quote:
I know the "Hermetic" lots quoted by Paulus enjoy wide popularity but I must say I'm seriously in doubt whether they are authentically Hermetic in the sense that they draw back to Nechepsos and Petosiris.


Nechepso and Ptosiris have some different points of view from Hermes, so the lots can be Hermetic even not following the king.

Quote:
A different formula exists for each of Love and Necessity (using Fortune and Spirit) used by earlier authors like Dorotheus, Valens and Firmicus Maternus (including papyrus horoscopes as late as the 4th century), and inferring Mercury into the notion of Necessity seems a little too far-fetched.


I agree. Necessity is related to material causes and I´m not able to see how Mercury is inferred in the formula. However, I do not know of any author giving a different formula for Necessity but the one using Mercury!


Clelia wrote:
I do not think Valens is suggesting to use Zeus in the passage you quoted


I do, for there very passage I mean (2.38.51) is right before those ones you quoted (2.38.56-59). I'll also give a translation for that:

Vettius Valens wrote:
And count the nuptial lot in the following fashion: if the nativity is a daytime one, from Zeus to Aphrodite (the reverse in the case of night), and the same amount from the Hour-Marker.


Yes, you´re right! Thumbs up Of course, sorry to be so reckless in my answer!

Quote:
The main MS, Vaticanus gr. 191 gives the planetary sign of Jupiter instead of that of Saturn but there isn't any parallel sources save for its apographs, therefore it can easily be a mistake.
[/quote]

And May Not be a mistake since Valens gave Jupiter intead of Saturn.
Only to discuss a little bit: Saturn is more appropriate, since marriage occured in the predominant classes in order to preserve heritage. Love and matrimony are two different things. Wink
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 142
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clelia wrote:
Perhaps because Bonatti suggests we to attend to the 8th sign from the Sun is diurnal figures and from the Moon in nocturnal figures, as one of the points to take into consideration to observe the potential Killing Planets, I was always with the Sun in mind instead of the Moon.


Oh, yes, I see but Bonatti (8.2.11) also strictly follows his sources, Abū Ma‘shar and al-Qabīṣī in regard of the lot of death, and this is the same Dorothean one. I must admit I don't really understand the rationale for this lot, and I feel some discomfort with using it at all, but it seems to me probable that the formula has nothing to do with the in-sect light.

Clelia wrote:
Nechepso and Ptosiris have some different points of view from Hermes, so the lots can be Hermetic even not following the king.


Okay, we know so-called Hermetic works were produced (and subsequently lost in most cases) for about two thousand years but I mean "Hermetic" in the astrologically narrowest sense, that is, for which Nechepsos and Petosiris can be regarded as expositors of the theory. Thusly elements, including the All-Virtuous, that can't be stemmed back to N & P are dubious for me: there is reason to assume that the King wrote not only about Fortune (this is virtually certain) but also about Spirit, and if so, it's logical to extend it to the original notion of Love and Necessity (see below).

Clelia wrote:
However, I do not know of any author giving a different formula for Necessity but the one using Mercury!


Yes, that's the point! Smile I'll show that most of Roman era and virtually all later astrologers counted Love from Fortune to Spirit and Necessity from Spirit to Fortune.

The topical treatment of friendship in ‘Umar ibn al-Ṭabarī's translation of Dorotheus doesn't survive but it was clearly treated by him as two independent testimonies in Hephaestio (2.23.11) and the so-called Liber Hermetis (of which is only the first chapter is truly Hermetic, the others form a bricolage of various sources; it's chapter 21) prove. It this procedure Love was also utilized but unfortunately neither of the sources give us the used formula. Moreover, there is a passage in Hephaestio (3.6.11) where he discusses the inceptions at sacrifice that can also be Dorothean but it's not sure. As to time it remains untranslated, I'll give my version:

Hephaestio of Thebes wrote:
…and one must consider in which places the stars are, and their arrangement and appearance, as well as the four lots, those of Fortune, Spirit, Necessity and Love.


Fortunately, the formula for the Love used by Dorotheus (counted from Fortune to Spirit) can be restored from three later and again independent sources. These are: the Book of Aristotle by Māshā’allāh (3.12.3.3), a set of excerpts paralleled with the former work in Vaticanus gr. 1056 (16.6) and the nativity of Costantine VII (14.3). Māshā’allāh also casts Necessity into play (3.12.1.2), and Sahl, who fully reworked Māshā’allāh tells these four lots were among the ones al-Andarzaghar investigated regarding friendship. This, combined with the testimony of Hephaestio, reinforces the assumption that these four lots formed a group for Dorotheus, even if the very investigation of the topic of friendship originally lacked looking at Necessity.

This is further explicated by the scribe of Laurentianus gr. 28, 34 who appends a scholium to the Hephaestio text quoted above. Being aware of the problems regarding these four lots, he is considering which variant formula should be used for Necessity and Love:

the scribe of Laur. gr. 28, 34 wrote:
The fact that in every inception one must look at the lots of Fortune, Spirit, Necessity and Love means a difficulty: whether one should cast Necessity and Love according to Hermes Trismegistus or in the way Dorotheus studies the opinion of the Egyptians in his fourth book…


It's not a suprise that the scribe knows the Pauline formulae attributed to Hermes: they also appear in the lengthy list of the same manuscript which was edited (and translated) as a part of Olympiodorus 22, althought it did not ever form a section of the Olympiodorus lecture, and this is also a primary MS for Rhetorius (see below). The precious bits of information are that Dorotheus did deal with these four lots (or at least with Necessity and Love) together and and they were counted in the fashion of the old Egyptians, that is, of Nechepsos and Petosiris.

Though not in Dorotheus, whose surviving fourth book is clearly deficient, these lots are treated together in the fourth book of Valens (4.25) in connection with giving and taking over (ie. profections). There are also some misplaced sentences in the unique MS of this section which instruct us to count from Fortune to Spirit for Love and from Spirit to Fortune for Necessity. These instruction may originally have been only sideglosses, nevertheless it must be admitted that their theoretical coherence makes it possible to accept these formulae as genuine. A further testimony can be provided from the independent Firmicus Maternus (7.32.45-46), who, though exchanging the formulae for Love and Necessity, substantially gives the same rationale.

Therefore I theorize that the original formulae of Nechepsos and Petosiris for Love and Necessity contained neither Venus nor Mercury but Fortune and Spirit, and these are used by the earlier astrological authors. I would also add that as I see the alternative (let me call them Pauline instead of Hermetic) formulae couldn't have appeared much before Paulus himself, and their career is mostly due to the fact that Rhetorius adopted them directly from Paulus.

Extant nativities rarely contain references to lots (save alone for Fortune) but even the scanty evidence shows that if it came to count the lots of Love and Necessity, the original formulae were used. The first of them is of a certain Ophellius (Princeton 75 = Greek Horoscopes no. 138/161) who was born under the reign of Antoninus Pius (138–161), which is roughly the time Valens was active. The second one (Oxyrhynchus 4277) was written in the late 2nd or early 3rd century, so it's nearly contemporary with the first, but the third one (PSI 23a = Greek Horoscopes no. 338) is for and by Hermesio, born on 24 December, 338, who cast more nativities for his relatives (or friends or clients) up to a nativity for Nestia/Apollonia, who was born in 385. I could even add the nativity of Constantine VII (born on 3 September, 905), survived in Parisinus gr. 2244, but this rather inept astrologer uses exclusively Ptolemy and Dorotheus, and so he isn't an independent witness.

On the contrary, the Pauline formulae appear first to us in Paulus in 378 or a little earlier, in his first, lost edition. He himself cites them from the All-Virtuous; it's only a scholium (and perhaps Olympiodorus from 564, but I'm not sure as sadly I don't have a copy of Olympiodorus) which attributes the authorship to Hermes Trismegistus, while Paulus himself could have also referred to Hermes, as he does, for example, concerning crises (34). That it was the very Paulus description which is later incorporated into his collection by Rhetorius (5.47) can be proved by the facts that Rhetorius knew Paulus so much that he even summarized his chapter about lots (6.29), and that neither of the chapters contains more information than Paulus. Curiously enough, in Rhetorius (at as we have it now) there's no reference to Hermes.

Despite Māshā’allāh's partial dependence on Rhetorius he seems to pay no attention to the Pauline lots, but later the original and the Pauline lots conflate in the way that Love and Necessity retain their original formulae but assume the Pauline name of being lots of Venus and Mercury, and in the same time the Pauline innovations (lots of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) are given unaltered, at least this is shown in Abū Ma‘shar and later listmakers. (One notable exception can be al-Rijāl who has a peculiar formula for at least Love; it's given as counted from Venus to Fortune in 4.10.) I don't think the Arabic authors were aware that they should attribute these lots to Hermes because this way they would probably have left the alternative versions like in the case of other lots of claimed Hermetic origin.

Finally, I would like to add a hypothesis about what could lead to the introduction of Pauline lots. There is a version for the lot of slaves reported by Hephaestio (2.20.4), attributed not to Dorotheus but to "others", and this is counted from Mercury to Fortune. This may draw back to Dorotheus himself since, according to al-Qabīṣī (5.9), al-Andarzaghar was already familiar with it, and Māshā’allāh also duly reports it (3.11.1.2), moreover, if we can believe to Abū Ma‘shar (Greater Introduction 8.4) it was known by Theophilus also. Then it must have been a Roman era lot, and so possibly could give rise to the idea of developing a full set of planetary lots which incorporated some names from the previously known ones (Love, Necessity and Nemesis) with updates and revised formulae.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clelia Romano



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Wed May 30, 2012 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Oh, yes, I see but Bonatti (8.2.11) also strictly follows his sources, Abū Ma‘shar and al-Qabīṣī in regard of the lot of death, and this is the same Dorothean one. I must admit I don't really understand the rationale for this lot, and I feel some discomfort with using it at all, but it seems to me probable that the formula has nothing to do with the in-sect light.


I agree: the Moon is always taken because of its connection with the body, and the search for the potential killers is another kind of perspective. Anyway, for the Killing planets Abu Ali pays attention to both light and the 8th sign of them ( but not only that), always looking to construct an almuten. Bonatti is the one who suggested to look at the 8th sign departing from the sect light. in my experience even not being so consistent I prefer to use both lights. But this has nothing to do with the lot of death

Quote:
Clelia wrote:
However, I do not know of any author giving a different formula for Necessity but the one using Mercury!


Quote:
Yes, that's the point! I'll show that most of Roman era and virtually all later astrologers counted Love from Fortune to Spirit and Necessity from Spirit to Fortune.


Wow, that will be amazing! I read in Firmicus the formula ASC+Fortuna-Spirit ( reverse) but I never took it into account, because the majority used the formula that we see in Paulus.


Quote:
The topical treatment of friendship in ‘Umar ibn al-Ṭabarī's translation of Dorotheus doesn't survive but it was clearly treated by him as two independent testimonies in Hephaestio (2.23.11) and the so-called Liber Hermetis (of which is only the first chapter is truly Hermetic, the others form a bricolage of various sources; it's chapter 21) prove. It this procedure Love was also utilized but unfortunately neither of the sources give us the used formula. Moreover, there is a passage in Hephaestio (3.6.11) where he discusses the inceptions at sacrifice that can also be Dorothean but it's not sure. As to time it remains untranslated, I'll give my version:
Hephaestio of Thebes wrote:
…and one must consider in which places the stars are, and their arrangement and appearance, as well as the four lots, those of Fortune, Spirit, Necessity and Love.


Fortunately, the formula for the Love used by Dorotheus (counted from Fortune to Spirit) can be restored from three later and again independent sources. These are: the Book of Aristotle by Māshā’allāh (3.12.3.3), a set of excerpts paralleled with the former work in Vaticanus gr. 1056 (16.6) and the nativity of Costantine VII (14.3). Māshā’allāh also casts Necessity into play (3.12.1.2), and Sahl, who fully reworked Māshā’allāh tells these four lots were among the ones al-Andarzaghar investigated regarding friendship. This, combined with the testimony of Hephaestio, reinforces the assumption that these four lots formed a group for Dorotheus, even if the very investigation of the topic of friendship originally lacked looking at Necessity.

This is further explicated by the scribe of Laurentianus gr. 28, 34 who appends a scholium to the Hephaestio text quoted above. Being aware of the problems regarding these four lots, he is considering which variant formula should be used for Necessity and Love:
the scribe of Laur. gr. 28, 34 wrote:
The fact that in every inception one must look at the lots of Fortune, Spirit, Necessity and Love means a difficulty: whether one should cast Necessity and Love according to Hermes Trismegistus or in the way Dorotheus studies the opinion of the Egyptians in his fourth book…


It's not a suprise that the scribe knows the Pauline formulae attributed to Hermes: they also appear in the lengthy list of the same manuscript which was edited (and translated) as a part of Olympiodorus 22, althought it did not ever form a section of the Olympiodorus lecture, and this is also a primary MS for Rhetorius (see below). The precious bits of information are that Dorotheus did deal with these four lots (or at least with Necessity and Love) together and and they were counted in the fashion of the old Egyptians, that is, of Nechepsos and Petosiris.

Though not in Dorotheus, whose surviving fourth book is clearly deficient, these lots are treated together in the fourth book of Valens (4.25) in connection with giving and taking over (ie. profections).
Yes, they are referred but I was not able to see the formula he used. ( I used the project Hindsight translation)

There are also some misplaced sentences in the unique MS of this section which instruct us to count from Fortune to Spirit for Love and from Spirit to Fortune for Necessity. These instruction may originally have been only sideglosses, nevertheless it must be admitted that their theoretical coherence makes it possible to accept these formulae as genuine. A further testimony can be provided from the independent Firmicus Maternus (7.32.45-46), who, though exchanging the formulae for Love and Necessity, substantially gives the same rationale.


So, as you are pointing out the right formula for Eros would be by day ASC+Spirit- Fortuna ( reversing by night) and for the necessity: by day ASC+Fortuna-Spirit ( reversing by night)?


Quote:
Therefore I theorize that the original formulae of Nechepsos and Petosiris for Love and Necessity contained neither Venus nor Mercury but Fortune and Spirit, and these are used by the earlier astrological authors. I would also add that as I see the alternative (let me call them Pauline instead of Hermetic) formulae couldn't have appeared much before Paulus himself, and their career is mostly due to the fact that Rhetorius adopted them directly from Paulus.

On the contrary, the Pauline formulae appear first to us in Paulus in 378 or a little earlier, in his first, lost edition. He himself cites them from the All-Virtuous; it's only a scholium (and perhaps Olympiodorus from 564, but I'm not sure as sadly I don't have a copy of Olympiodorus) which attributes the authorship to Hermes Trismegistus, while Paulus himself could have also referred to Hermes, as he does, for example, concerning crises (34). That it was the very Paulus description which is later incorporated into his collection by Rhetorius (5.47) can be proved by the facts that Rhetorius knew Paulus so much that he even summarized his chapter about lots (6.29), and that neither of the chapters contains more information than Paulus. Curiously enough, in Rhetorius (at as we have it now) there's no reference to Hermes.

Despite Māshā’allāh's partial dependence on Rhetorius he seems to pay no attention to the Pauline lots, but later the original and the Pauline lots conflate in the way that Love and Necessity retain their original formulae but assume the Pauline name of being lots of Venus and Mercury, and in the same time the Pauline innovations (lots of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) are given unaltered, at least this is shown in Abū Ma‘shar and later listmakers. (One notable exception can be al-Rijāl who has a peculiar formula for at least Love; it's given as counted from Venus to Fortune in 4.10.) I don't think the Arabic authors were aware that they should attribute these lots to Hermes because this way they would probably have left the alternative versions like in the case of other lots of claimed Hermetic origin.

Finally, I would like to add a hypothesis about what could lead to the introduction of Pauline lots. There is a version for the lot of slaves reported by Hephaestio (2.20.4), attributed not to Dorotheus but to "others", and this is counted from Mercury to Fortune. This may draw back to Dorotheus himself since, according to al-Qabīṣī (5.9), al-Andarzaghar was already familiar with it, and Māshā’allāh also duly reports it (3.11.1.2), moreover, if we can believe to Abū Ma‘shar (Greater Introduction 8.4) it was known by Theophilus also. Then it must have been a Roman era lot, and so possibly could give rise to the idea of developing a full set of planetary lots which incorporated some names from the previously known ones (Love, Necessity and Nemesis) with updates and revised formulae


Do you infer that the lots were originally only four? Fortuna, Spirit, Necessity and Love? This is important!

By now, congratulations for your post and thank you for sharing your erudite investigation. God knows how much troubles I was spared regarding the Lot of Necessity and Eros due the present thread!
Many thanks again, Levente!
_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Levente Laszlo



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 142
Location: Budapest, Hungary

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clelia wrote:
Anyway, for the Killing planets Abu Ali pays attention to both light and the 8th sign of them ( but not only that), always looking to construct an almuten.


I had to check this mubtazz method of Abū ‘Alī (and it's logical extension at Abū Bakr) to refresh my memory. Some time later I'll begin to test these methods but probably I will need to familiarize myself with the mubtazz technique that I find theoretically and historically questionable. These mechanical methods are appalling for me. Confused

Clelia wrote:
Yes, they are referred but I was not able to see the formula he used. ( I used the project Hindsight translation)


Yes, Schmidt left these notes untranslated because they were bracketed in Pingree's edition as interpolations. They possibly are but the received text of Valens suffers from omissions and garbled sentences, thus every help with the interpretation is welcome. There are, for example, some other lots whose formula is missing altogether.

Clelia wrote:
So, as you are pointing out the right formula for Eros would be by day ASC+Spirit- Fortuna ( reversing by night) and for the necessity: by day ASC+Fortuna-Spirit ( reversing by night)?


Well, I'd avoid using the word "right"; I'd rather say the "original formula of the Egyptian expositors" that can be gleaned from different sources.

Clelia wrote:
Do you infer that the lots were originally only four? Fortuna, Spirit, Necessity and Love? This is important!


I think everything started with Fortune but as it seems logical to treat these four lots (and possibly that of basis) together somehow, I do believe they were discussed by Nechepsos, evidently in the 13th book. Nevertheless, there is another almost uniform set of lots, the "family lots" (father, mother, siblings, spouse and children) but I'm dubious whether this set really belonged to this stratum.

Family members as topics appear in the eight-topic system attributed to Asclepius (Imhotep, son of Ptah) rather than in the twelve-topic system attributed to Hermes (Amenhotep, son of Hapu): these are the semi-legendary figures whose oeuvre Nechepsos and Petosiris commented. But now I know that of the family topics only children were explicitly treated by Petosiris.

Besides N & P you can find the name of Timaeus who interpreted the notion of useful (chrēmatistikos) places differently from Nechepsos, and claims this is the system Hermes intended. This seven-place system of Timaeus employs a similar rationale for ascertaining the useful places as the eight-topic system of Asclepius, that is, configuration with the ascendant is evaluated; moreover, the chapter about parents in Valens is admittedly from Timaeus, and if the distinctive vocabulary in another chapter about injuries also belong to him, it's tempting to assume that the topical discussions can at least partly stem back to Timaeus with a conspicuous addition from Petosiris in the chapter about children. (A late scholium to Paulus 25, however, explicitly infers Timaeus' name in the discussion about children.)

Thus, although it would an audacious argumentum ex nihilo to say that Petosiris can't have discussed family members but only children, it's at best an appealing hypothesis to attribute the systematic treatment of family and perhaps the pertaining lots to Timaeus.

Clelia wrote:
By now, congratulations for your post and thank you for sharing your erudite investigation.


Oh, thanks Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clelia Romano



Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 353
Location: São Paulo

Posted: Thu May 31, 2012 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I had to check this mubtazz method of Abū ‘Alī (and it's logical extension at Abū Bakr) to refresh my memory. Some time later I'll begin to test these methods but probably I will need to familiarize myself with the mubtazz technique that I find theoretically and historically questionable. These mechanical methods are appalling for me. Confused


I do not have anything against the almuten method: students find it useful because they feel secure by counting, so it is okay in the first contact with medieval astrology. But if they think a little further the almuten is nothing more then one of the planets having dignity in a certain portion. We teach to look always at essential and topical dignity. So, sometimes the almuten is cadent and you have to go back and chose one of the other planets having dignity in the place. I think that the use of almuten is useless. It seems a story I learned of how to get a soup using a stone. The recipe is to put the stone and water in a pot over the fire. After you put soem meet, onion and salt. and it´s done! Why to put the stone, every body will ask Lala Happy All of the sudden the student will see that the magic did not work at all. It is necessary only to think a little bit and you can get the significator without the construction of almutens.
And it is worse when we are asked to calculate the almuten over a cusp post ascensional or declining. I ask myself how they( medieval astrologers) can trut so much in their house division!


Clelia wrote:
So, as you are pointing out the right formula for Eros would be by day ASC+Spirit- Fortuna ( reversing by night) and for the necessity: by day ASC+Fortuna-Spirit ( reversing by night)?


Quote:
Well, I'd avoid using the word "right"; I'd rather say the "original formula of the Egyptian expositors" that can be gleaned from different sources.


I tried these formula before in my own chart, but I will check it out with the others. In my chart Fortuna and Necesity ( usign the way descrived above)will will fall in Aquarius( the 5th place) and the Moon squares them from a superior position, in their 10th. The ruler fall amiss and is in the radical 10th. It makes sense to me. My sons are my heaven and my
hell Wink

Clelia wrote:
Do you infer that the lots were originally only four? Fortuna, Spirit, Necessity and Love? This is important!


Quote:
I think everything started with Fortune but as it seems logical to treat these four lots (and possibly that of basis) together somehow, I do believe they were discussed by Nechepsos, evidently in the 13th book.


I do not have any book from Nechepsos.


Quote:
Nevertheless, there is another almost uniform set of lots, the "family lots" (father, mother, siblings, spouse and children) but I'm dubious whether this set really belonged to this stratum.

Family members as topics appear in the eight-topic system attributed to Asclepius (Imhotep, son of Ptah) rather than in the twelve-topic system attributed to Hermes (Amenhotep, son of Hapu): these are the semi-legendary figures whose oeuvre Nechepsos and Petosiris commented.


Yes, I this agrees with the material I have been studying!

Quote:
But now I know that of the family topics only children were explicitly treated by Petosiris.

Besides N & P you can find the name of Timaeus who interpreted the notion of useful (chrēmatistikos) places differently from Nechepsos, and claims this is the system Hermes intended
.

Nechepso says that the 8th place is conductive to business, but this is different from the supposed idea of Hermes, who admitted 12 houses and the useful ones are besides the Hour Maker and the MC, those trigonal or hexagonalwith the Hour Maker , like the 11th.Are we in the same page?

Next you says that Timaeus has a 7 places system...now I got lost! Confused


Quote:
This seven-place system of Timaeus employs a similar rationale for ascertaining the useful places as the eight-topic system of Asclepius, that is, configuration with the ascendant is evaluated; moreover, the chapter about parents in Valens is admittedly from Timaeus, and if the distinctive vocabulary in another chapter about injuries also belong to him, it's tempting to assume that the topical discussions can at least partly stem back to Timaeus with a conspicuous addition from Petosiris in the chapter about children.

Thus, although it would an audacious argumentum ex nihilo to say that Petosiris can't have discussed family members but only children, it's at best an appealing hypothesis to attribute the systematic treatment of family and perhaps the pertaining lots to Timaeus.

_________________
http://www.astrologiahumana.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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