Extended Cheiro’s rule for numbers above 52?

Cheiro described a system of numbers up to 52. For numbers above 52, it’s incorrect to apply the rule of reversed digits (for example, 71, the number “Reaper,” is not the same as 17, the number “Star”), and the rule of adding digits doesn’t always work (65, “Royal Star of the Scorpion,” is not the usual 11, “Force,” but rather a special form of 11).

This raises the question of how Cheiro approached numbers above 52. There are two possibilities. The first is that the Chaldean tarot, which describes the first 78 numbers, does not provide reliable interpretations for numbers beyond 52, so Cheiro may have simply left them out. The second possibility is that numbers above 52. According to the second possibility, numbers above 52 are explained by a series of numbers with the same base number, which follow each individual number with a “distinct potency of its own.” This approach also provides an explanation for numbers from 79 to 99.

Cheiro explained that number “_ has the same meaning as the number _ , which is next to it in its own series of compound numbers.”  However, Cheiro extends the influence of numbers with a distinct potency of their own to numbers from 42 onwards. According to Cheiro’s rule of the Chaldean tarot, each number without a “distinct potency of its own” takes on the meaning of the nearest preceding number that has this distinct potency, based on the series of numbers with the same base number. This rule applies up to number 52.

It’s important to note that Cheiro also acknowledged some numbers above 52 that have a “distinct potency of their own.” He used the numbers 55 (“Sword“) and 69 (“The Crown of Mars“), which he took from Kabbalistic astrology. Thus, he was certainly aware of the significance of numbers 65 and 71, too. If we extend Cheiro’s rule about numbers having a nature similar to that of a number with a distinct potency of its own to numbers above 52, we obtain the following pattern:

Base number 1: 28; 37 ≈ 46; 55 ≈ 64 ≈ 73 ≈ 82 ≈ 91;

Base number 2: 29 ≈ 38≈ 47≈ 56; 65 ≈ 74 ≈ 83 ≈ 92;

Base number 3: 30 ≈ 39 ≈ 48 ≈ 57 ≈ 66 ≈ 75 ≈ 84 ≈ 93;

Base number 4: 31 ≈ 40 ≈ 49 ≈ 58 ≈ 67 ≈ 76 ≈ 85 ≈ 94;

Base number 5: 23; 32 ≈ 41 ≈ 50 ≈ 59 ≈ 68 ≈ 77 ≈ 87 ≈ 95;

Base number 6: 24 ≈ 33 ≈ 42; 51 ≈ 60; 69 ≈ 78 ≈ 87 ≈ 96;

Base number 7: 25 ≈ 34; 43 ≈ 52 ≈ 61 ≈ 70 ≈ 79 ≈ 88 ≈ 97;

Base number 8: 26 ≈ 35 ≈ 44 ≈ 53 ≈ 62; 71 ≈ 80 ≈ 89 ≈ 98;

Base number 9: 27 ≈ 36 ≈ 45 ≈ 54 ≈ 63 ≈ 72 ≈ 81 ≈ 90 ≈ 99.

Compared to traditional Chaldean numerology, these values don’t always align. Even within numbers up to 52, there are questionable examples. For instance, the numbers 39 and 48 carry a strong influence from the number 12 and seem more closely related to the characteristics of 12 than to the number 30. Notably, numerologists Pandit Sethuraman and Gerun Moore reverted to the association with the number 12 for these two numbers. I also consider their nature to be that of the number 12. Similar cases can be found among numbers above 52.

Therefore, approach Cheiro’s expanded rule with caution. As mentioned, this is just one of two possible ways Cheiro may have dealt with numbers above 52. Personally, I don’t trust this approach and don’t use it. It is presented here as a third option, alongside the rule of reversed digits and the rule of adding digits.