13 by irisalbus johannes susato wrote:astroart wrote:I mean the second formula in the text on the page 232, first column below or: Thank you, astroart! "[..] this degree/part is got in the day from the Sun to the Moon, and conversely at night and they project from the degree of the tenth house." The formula then would be: MC + Moon - Sun (in the day) MC + Sun - Moon (in the night). Johannes Hello, a technical question: do you happen to know why I see only a question mark where I think the original quotation should be in astroart's post? If I click on it only the page www.radikal.ru appears.... Iris Quote Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:11 am
14 by astroart Which hellenistic sources did you have in mind for this lot? Byzantine sources: folio 25v from the greek MS stored in the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florenze (Laurentianus 28,16) .The manuscript is described in CCAG I, pp.38-39. Probably the author of the text according to D. Pingree is the Byzantine astrologer John Abramius. Hellenistic sources: Lot of Kingship (?????? ?????????) in Heliodori, ut dicitur, in Paulum Alexandrinum Commentarium, Leipzig 1962 , p.59 http://www.astro-art.com/ Quote Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:30 am
15 by johannes susato irisalbus wrote:johannes susato wrote:astroart wrote:I mean the second formula in the text on the page 232, first column below or: Thank you, astroart! "[..] this degree/part is got in the day from the Sun to the Moon, and conversely at night and they project from the degree of the tenth house." The formula then would be: MC + Moon - Sun (in the day) MC + Sun - Moon (in the night). Johannes Hello, a technical question: do you happen to know why I see only a question mark where I think the original quotation should be in astroart's post? If I click on it only the page www.radikal.ru appears.... Iris I am not sure to understand your question, Iris, but writing your reply you cannot see arstroart's quotation before you have not pushed the PREVIEW-Button (left to the SUBMIT-Button). Johannes Quote Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:42 am
16 by irisalbus johannes susato wrote:astroart wrote: "[..] this degree/part is got in the day from the Sun to the Moon, and conversely at night and they project from the degree of the tenth house." The formula then would be: MC + Moon - Sun (in the day) MC + Sun - Moon (in the night). Johannes Hello again, in the meantime I have found the piece, it is right in the middle of the piece of text I quoted, sorry for the oversight (I thought that part of the text was speaking about the detailed meaning according to the position of the Part/Lot). Anyway, it says the Lot of Kingdom/kingship and Superiors is counted from Mars to Moon (etc) "although others say that this Lot is taken from the Sun to the Moon" (etc). So now we have (by day): 1) ASC + Moon - Mars 2) MC + Moon - Sun 3) ASC + Saturn - Sun 4) ASC + Moon - Saturn Which do you think is fitting best? Iris Quote Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:53 am
17 by johannes susato irisalbus wrote:So now we have (by day): 1) ASC + Moon - Mars 2) MC + Moon - Sun 3) ASC + Saturn - Sun 4) ASC + Moon - Saturn Which do you think is fitting best? Iris To be honest as yet I do not understand the principles of the Arabs constructing the lots. When I treat the lots simply as planet-pictures, in my opinion lot 2) would fit best, but in the night version: MC + Sun - Moon This could be translated as: My acting or my actions, my rank (MC) as the Father (Sun) of the/my people (Moon). Or in other words: The native's acting and actions, his rank (MC) as the Father (Sun) of his people (Moon). But what is your favourite, Iris? And all? astroart, why do you think formula 2) MC + MO - SO to be the best? Johannes Quote Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:05 am
18 by irisalbus Hello Johannes, my first choice would have been the formula with the MC involved, considering the MC as "the highest place" and the Sun as "the main luminary" (trying to follow the thought of the ancient) but I had doubt about how the Moon would fit in ? and you have given the answer, thanks. I had also tried to consider the qualities of the other planets of the other formulae and match them with the qualities attributed to a king (or one in an elevated position among "his people"), so I thought that the Saturn-Sun configuration could be explained connecting Saturn with severity and maturity, so this could be my second choice. And following the same line of thoughts, I could accept Mars as representing the fierce and combative feature great conquerors or warlords possess, I somehow stil do not see what the figure of the Moon could mean when not in combination with the Sun (a royal figure itself), ie. in the 1) and 4) formulae. But maybe I am being too phylosophic here :-) Iris Quote Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:01 pm
19 by johannes susato irisalbus wrote:[...]I somehow still do not see what the figure of the Moon could mean when not in combination with the Sun (a royal figure itself), ie. in the 1) and 4) formulae. But maybe I am being too phylosophic here :-) Iris Hello Iris, me too I do not find any satisfying information about lots - their theory and working etc. - I hope to get answers of many competent members of this forum in the new Thread: "Theory of Lots." http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7221 As yet, without these informations, I would say: 1) ASC + Moon - Mars 2) MC + Moon - Sun 3) ASC + Saturn - Sun 4) ASC + Moon - Saturn 1) I (AC) and my People (Moon) are acting, in action, are warriors. 2) I act (MC) together with my people (Moon) as the Father of all or the centre (Sun). 3) I (AC) give structure (SA) as the father, centre &c. (Sun). 4) I (AC) and my people (Moon) are structered, live in structures (Saturn). Johannes Quote Thu Jan 10, 2013 5:44 pm
20 by astroart The Byzantine source, which I referred in my previous post, namely folio 25v from the greek MS in the Biblioteca Laurenziana( Florenze ) contains the chart of the following event: On August 12 1376 Andronicus IV, who was the eldest son of the Byzantine emperor John V Paleologus, entered the city of Constantinople with the aid of Ottoman Sultan Murat I and Genoese in Pera(district of Constantinople)) and besieged his father and his two brothers. The astrologer of the Andronicus IV was not anybody else but John Abramius. He had cast the chart for entering into the city of Constantinople and had to predict whether the pretender to the throne would succeed in overthrowing his father from power, and if so ? how long the reign would be. In order to do this the Byzantine court astrologer used the Lot of Kingship, the formula for which is given by Haly Abenragel. The question is: could the court astrologer have used just any formula for this Lot? The answer is clearly no. He used a formula that was employed by his predecessors and what he had inherited as an authentic Hellenistic tradition. http://www.astro-art.com/ Quote Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:40 pm