Skyscript Astrology Forum

A while back Astrojin wrote:

Is it OK if I discuss other Lots (not one of the Hermetic Lots)?

Please do - I think that might lead us back on-topic

Hi all,

sorry, I've written a rather long post so I'd rather cut it into three parts. But it really leads back to the original thread.

I can really understand the ones who are a bit irritated by the lots. While the other astrological elements are able to be explained by disciplined astrological thinking, the lots, where some mathematical hocus-pocus is employed, are undeniably embarrassing. A rationalist may well refuse to use them; for traditionalists there is the task of exploration and explanation remaining to bother themselves.

The purpose of the other tools are easy to be grasped. The role of the stars is to send messages as they express their personality, their feelings about their own state, and their attitude to other stars (if they mind, only in the case of wandering ones) - something which is translated to earthly matters. Alternatively, they convey some kind of command or exercise power on the Earth. The zodiac, however, is a board they occupy, which can be segmented to images and portions, all of which provide different enviroment, mood, interest or uninterest for the stars. In the same time, the images of the zodiac serve as places, that is, areas of life, depending on which images is divided to bright and dark parts by the horizon, while rising. The double function of these zodiacal sections is not self-contradictory: whereas as images they show likeness, as places they refer to function. In fact, this is not even a double function: it's a quadruple function for they serve as domiciles and exaltations for the wandering stars, thus they are areas where various forms of power may be exercised. (Some of you might not agree with some or more of these statements but it's only intended to be an comparative illustration.)

To turn back to the lots, a main question is why we must use them. There is a lot (or rather, there are lots) of marriage; but there is a place for marriage (the sinking one), and also we can find a star (Venus) that is associated with affairs involving emotions. Yeah, there are lots bearing curious names like courage or victory but there is no clear hint why we should rely on them and not on places and stars, as usual.

Perhaps we can approach this problem from a philosophical perspective. Well known is the fact that althought there are hundreds of lots from all eras, the two most widely used lots are that of Fortune and of Spirit. Now, fortune (tuch?) and, at a lesser extent, spirit (daim?n) are something that are extensively discussed in Greek philosophical literature. The word tuch? means an act of a power superior to men, it may be restricting or allowing, and it also signifies the result, no matter it's good or ill. In the same time, daim?n is such a superior power or the power itself they exercise. Now, I don't really want to pursue the development of tuch? through Greek philosophy, I just want to point out that this two ideas often appear in Platonizing context. For example, the Platonist philosopher, Plutarch asserts earthly souls are made of destiny (heimarmen?) - which compels -, of tuch? - which gives chance -, and of "that depends on us" eph' h?min. In this model, the act of the divine power is allowing: gives something we can either make use of or leave neglected. This is the same that the Latin equivalent, fortuna expresses: a certain condition that can be utilized by free choice. And it's what comes from a daim?n. To illustrate how these may meet, let me quote Plato:

Plato in Republic wrote:But when, to conclude, all the souls had chosen their lives in the order of their lots, they were marshalled and went before Lachesis. And she sent with each, as the guardian of his life and the fulfiller of his choice, the genius (daim?n) that he had chosen, and this divinity led the soul first to Clotho, under her hand and her turning of the spindle to ratify the destiny of his lot and choice; and after contact with her the genius again led the soul to the spinning of Atropos to make the web of its destiny irreversible, and then without a backward look it passed beneath the throne of Necessity.

Therefore, according to Plato, a soul chooses a life, and the first of the Fates, Lachesis gives them a daim?n who is going to be responsible for executing such a life. Note that necessity (anagk?), which is a name of another lot closely connected to both tuch? and daim?n, also appears in the text: together with er?s, which is again something all around in Platonic texts, they form the four basic lots.

Following Platonist concepts, we can summarize that in astrological context tuch? is something which can be utilized but it isn't compulsory, with daim?n being the source of tuch?. I don't think it's a perfect example but this is somewhat similar to the relationship of talent and situations provided by talent. In this way, wandering stars are the agents of the destiny while lots like tuch? and daim?n are connected to chance somehow. I think the keyword "lot" can give us a clue.

The Greek equivalent, kl?ros means 'lot' indeed but no early Latin translation is known. The two expressions sometimes used by Firmicus are pars and locus but they refer to portions and places, respectively. But it also means allotment, like allotment of chance. Falling somewhere in the zodiac, we can discern regarding various allotted matters what they are like (their image), who they are ruled by (their domicile and exaltation), and which area of life they appear upon (their place). That may be the reason why Valens associates the tuch? lot with bodily talents like handicrafts and the daim?n lot with mental talents like trade. So the rationale of the lots can be explained: in the case of private relationships, there is a star generally governing emotial questions, there is an area which specially belongs to marriage and that sort of thing, and there are some other elements which give a personal chance to affairs regarding marriage and related cases. For example, the marital lot gives hint for the time and quality of the marriage but not cogently, and the separate marriage lots for men and women shows sexuality and whether it's lawful. But to put it in the simplest manner: while stars send messages about which cannot be changed, lots give us a chance to fulfil our destiny.

(This is the second part.)

Independently from the question how lots should be assumed and incorporated in our practice, there comes the annoying fact of uncertainty of their calculation. I don't really refer to the old argument whether we should change the night formula or not; instead, I'd like to point out that the calculation method was obscure even at the time of the beginnings. At least, Valens is disturbed by the allusions of Nechepso who seems to employ different calculation for daytime and night nativities but then he became helpless having read some enigmatic remarks about the Moon being sometimes under the horizon at night. Nevertheless, his charts are made in the usual way. This uncertainty is manifested in another form in Serapio excerpted by Rhetorius.

But there is another uncertainty. While we customarily count the lot of fortune with measuring the distance between the luminaries and then projecting this from the hour-marker, all expressed in portions, no early text tells us what we should count: we could as well count the images. And I strongly suspect the latter method is originally intended. This would explain a number of peculiarities:

1. Authors sometimes refer to situations when a lot is together with another lot. Now, what is "being together"? If we count the lots by portions, some of them will occupy common images but what if they have a nice distance between each other? Are they together? If we count them by images, it'll be clear when we face with coincidence.

2. Another widely applied term is "seeing" in the case of a lot and a wandering star, especially its domicile master. We know that no matter which portion they occupy, the star will see the lot if configured. It's very similar to the relationship of places and stars where the places are equal with a whole image. Then, I guess, counting the lots by images would keep the logic in this case, too.

3. There are lots in Dorotheus which are derived from a wandering star and a place. It'd be relieving to know that we must count with a house cusp, but there's no reference for any cusps, even more, there arent't any cusps in the whole Hellenistic material. (I've already written about the will-o-wisp of the cusps somewhere else: to sum up, the word "cusp" seem to be a synonym for Arabic "houses" and when the Arabic quadrant houses were introduced to Europe, this term started to be applied for the beginning of these houses.) Dykes also observed this problem and suggested applying the first portion of a place. I feel it's much more reasonable to eliminate the problem of portions altogether.

4. When listing lots, Firmicus constantly refers them as locus fortunae etc. As locus is a literal translation for a place, not for a portion. It's true, however, that he discusses the manner of calculation both by image and by portion. I'll return to it below.

5. In Valens, there is an alternative topical system, derived from the lot of fortune. Now, the usual topical system starts with the hour-marker and it's really not its portion which is important. More often the whole first place is called hour-marker, as this is the one divided by the horizon, thusly associated with birth. Anyway, if you look at the example charts of the early authors, relevant items are given by images, not by portions. Of course, it may be attributed to astronomical underdevelopment but don't forget that even prognostical tools like giving and receiving (profection) are based on quantum-like jumps, in the example by images. There exists a method for profection from the four basic lots, though.

6. Describing the lot of exaltation, Valens instruct us to count from the in-sect luminary to its exaltation. As no exaltation portion is given by him, it would be hardly possibly to count portionally; of course, we may use the first portion of the relevant image, as in no. 4.

Accepting this theory, we could eliminate the sorcery of maths and find a way to reconcile the notion of lots with astrological logic and common sense. (By the way, I recommend you to look at the early example charts: you'll find the lots always counted in this manner; sometimes there would be a very narrow time frame if we intend to count by portions. I hope I haven't overlooked any. ) As the function of the hour-marker is almost nothing more than to mark which image-domicile-exaltation is going to be the first universal topical place, the lots don't have to remain an annoying mathematical fiction but they can be simply something else which marks an image-domicile-exaltation-place. If, for example, the out-of-sect luminary occupies the fourth place from the in-sect luminary, it's just a sign for that the fourth place from the hour-marker should be marked somehow. Not because there falls anything; only because the relationship of the luminaries put an emphasis somewhere in the chart. It's the chart, I emphasize, not in the constellation (as the constellation is the celestial picture while the chart is on the paper).

There are some other results coming from this scheme. If we count by images, the lots of fortune and spirit will be in the same image, or configured by a hexagonal, trigonal or diametrical figure, that is, aversion won't occur. Utilizing the common formula for love and necessity (not that of Paulus and Olympiodorus), will also be in the same image or configured by a trigon. So accepting these, I think we could even strengthen the inherent logic of our charts and also our astrology.

(This is the third part.)

Some authors like Ptolemy, Firmicus, Paulus, Olympiodorus and Rhetorius don't fit into this scheme. But the reason is, I argue, that all of these later astrologers rely on Ptolemy, albeit not wholly: even Hephaestio is hesitant to employ Ptolemy's unitary formula which is completely understandable as on the ground of Ptolemy's principles each lot save that of fortune should be dismissed.

As I see, Ptolemy is in pains when it comes to physically non-existent elements like places and lots. As it has been observed by many, he practically doesn't make use of the places, apart from the midheaven and, in the case of children, the Good Spirit and Good Fortune. Hephaestio mentions that Ptolemy drew on Petosiris for this latter topic and Valens confirms it was dealt by Petosiris indeed. I assume this as a shortcoming in Ptolemy's rationalizing process.

The notion of lots may have caused him even a less comfortable pain in the neck. That's why he seem to choose a sophisticated way to save the lot of fortune for the cost of sacrification the others. It becomes a lunar hour-marker which has the same relationship with the moon as the original hour-marker has with the sun. There only remains a solitary formula but Ptolemy, as usual, is not wholly clear on his intentions: describing the relationship, he uses the word "proportion" (logos) and "figuration" (sch?matismos). Most of astrologers take this as measuring ecliptical distance but there were others like Negusianzo and Placido who used ascensions (direct and oblique) instead. Their formula was upgraded later by Brunacci and Onorati.

Thus, in Ptolemy's model the lunar hour-marker is an astronomical construction which is far away from the original intention of the lot of fortune. Nevertheless, Ptolemy uses it in a similar but much more restricted manner. His rigorous astronomical principles allowed later astrologers to pick up some of his ideas, among which there was a mathematical computation of the lot of fortune. The easiest way to reconciliate his ideas with the traditional teachings was to adopt his maths while still retain the changing of the formula.

Also, I hypothesize that the idea of Hermetic lots, that is, the lots belonging to wandering stars, as it's read in Paulus, is again influenced by Ptolemy: if there exist a lot exclusively belonging to the Moon, why others couldn't be invented? The name of the lot of love, which is based on the fortune and spirit in various sources, bears a call for refurbishment with the use of Venus. The only problem that the employment of this logic resulted in reformulation of the lot of necessity with Mercury which looks quite strange from the perspective of traditional descriptions given for Mercury. And if it was Paulus who applied the traditional daytime-night swapping for these points originally not intended to change, we can see why this "Hermetic" lots break the head of many. Anyway, it's just an audacious idea from me, nothing that could be proven.

Thanks for your patience.

Levente

Levente,

You know, you need to write some books at some point

I'm more of the opinion that Paulus got the Lots from somewhere, but never much used them if at all, and his commentator even less. Yours is an interesting idea, however.

As for Frawley, I'd be repeating myself if I said his opinion is preposterous.

Hello,

A few very important questions concerning Lots:

1. (Not so important): Who created them? They may be listed in the Panaretus associated to Hermes but listed and created are 2 very different things. Perhaps we could gain something pragmatic by knowing the original creators of these Lots for the lots were created. They could not have been "observed".

2. (More important): Why were they created? What is the theoretical and practical motivation for creating these Lots (i.e. why have them in the first place?). We probably only have partial answers to this but if we discover the practical reasons for creating these Lots, we could be better practical traditional astrologers (theoretically!).

3. What is the logic behind the construction of these Lots? Why 2 planets? Even more important (at least to me), why do we reverse the formulae of some Lots and not others? Abu Ma'shar and Bonatti gave some of their ideas to this question but my conjecture is that they were also conjecturing! If we could divine the pattern behind the constructions of these Lots, we could even create our own (well not that we would want to do this, there are already too many existing Lots which Albiruni also complained).

Perhaps members who more into astro-historical savvy can enlighten us. Perhaps even some could give conjectures to the above?

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