Calculating Lots in annual revolutions

1
I have a feeling that this question may have been discussed before, but I can't find it in the archives, so here goes:

I wonder if one of the following options can be said to be standard traditional practice when judging Lots in the annual/solar revolution, or if it is the case that authorities differ on the correct procedure:

1) calculating a new set of Lots from the figure of the revolution, just as one would from the nativity, and judging them in the same way;

2) profecting the natal Lots and inserting them in the figure of the revolution, just as is done with the ascendant;

3) simply transposing the natal Lots to the figure of the revolution;

4) any other procedure that I haven't thought of yet.

Any and all references to traditional (particularly medieval) texts would be greatly appreciated!
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

2
Hi Martin,

Abu Ma'shar is the earliest one I can think of who suggests to recalulate the lots as he advises in his text On Solar Revolutions (p58 of Dykes' translation).

Masha'allah in his Book of Aristotle mentions the lots (p186 of Dykes' translation) but only the natal positions. If we read his (and Dorotheus') advice for predicting the timing of children and marriage, they use Jupiter and Venus revolution transits to the stakes of the natal lot, so they don't seem to recalculate them. It also makes sense considering that they superimposed the revolution onto the nativity anyway, it seems to be Abu Ma'shar again who wants to treat the revolution as an individual chart.

I would think option 3 would have been the standard before Abu Ma'shar.

If you don't have the texts I can leave the quotes here for you.
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com

3
Thanks, Konrad; that's exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. I have both books (indeed, I've read them several times, but because I wasn't very interested in the Lots their treatment escaped my attention).

So we have approaches 1 and 3 documented, though not by the same author. I wonder about approach 2, though. Greek authors certainly advocated profecting the Lots, and it would be strange if that practice wasn't incorporated in the Persian annual prognostication kit.
https://astrology.martingansten.com/

4
The Persians seemed more interested in which lots were activated via the chronocatorship of their lords than the profection of the lots themselves. I would have to agree with them; I have never found much use in profecting the lots or signs outwith the ASC and, at times, the MC.

I haven't really studied Omar but he seems suitably exacting enough to want to profect everything in the chart every year. Have you tried him?
http://www.esmaraldaastrology.wordpress.com

6
Thanks, Konrad. Yes, I knew 'Umar (Omar) profects the Lots; I just don't know whether he would put them into the figure of the revolution -- or, conversely, if he didn't use a separate figure for the revolution, whether he would consider the transits at the beginning of the year of particular relevance in relation to the profected Lots.

I haven't really tested any of these methods much; what got me wondering was the fact that the Indians (T?jikas) recalculate the Lots with each revolution, and I thought this might help me determine their possible source texts. (However, N?laka??ha says only to recalculate and judge those Lots which are fruitfully disposed in the nativity.)
Konrad wrote:I have never found much use in profecting the lots or signs outwith the ASC and, at times, the MC.
Ha! I learnt a Scottish preposition today. Thank you. :D
https://astrology.martingansten.com/