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:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Monomoiria-The lost essential dignity?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gjiada:
Quote:
I gave a look to my (Italian) Liber Hermetis but it seems to me there is nothing about this method. Anyway I was very quick in checking so i could be wrong.


I dont recall seeing anything in the English version either. However, I may have missed it as I have been focusing on the references to fixed stars. Another one to check out over the weekend...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
James E.



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 4:51 pm    Post subject: Re: Monomoiria-The lost essential dignity? Reply with quote

MarkC wrote:
Hi,

I have just come across this interesting article by Ema Kurent on the Monomoria. These were the the different planets linked to each degree of the zodiac by hellenistic astrologers. They seem to have been used by the hellenistic astrologers as a supplement to the usual 5 essential dignities. The article shows the Monomoiria in practice in relation to famous nativities.

http://www.geocities.com/arsenicobr/monomoiria.doc

I had noticed these in Dorian Greenbaum's translation of Paulus but the article really helps to flesh out the practical use of the Monomoiria.



The table of monomoiria in Ema Kurent's article uses zero and we all know that the zero whas not used in hellenistic times. In Schmidt's [Project Hindsight's] translation (1), the table of Monomoiria starts at 1 and ends at 30...

May I ask which table one should work with?


(1) Paulus Alexandrinus, Introductory Matters, page 14
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Jerd

Welcome to Skyscript!

Quote:
The table of monomoiria in Ema Kurent's article uses zero and we all know that the zero whas not used in hellenistic times. In Schmidt's [Project Hindsight's] translation (1), the table of Monomoiria starts at 1 and ends at 30...

May I ask which table one should work with?
(1) Paulus Alexandrinus, Introductory Matters, page 14


I only found the article by accident while scanning the web for something else. I didn't consult with the author first so I hope she is content for it to be posted on the forum like this. I just thought it was an excellent way to get a discussion going on this fascinating topic. I think Ema's article was written quite a few years ago and the web link is to a rough draft. I believe a more complete final version of the article appeared in the UK Astrological Association journal some years ago.

I have been informed the author is a member of the skyscript forum so she will hopefully speak for herself regarding her paper and where her understanding on this topic has to got to since she wrote the draft article.

I do not have any definitive answers for you on this. Perhaps more knowledgeable students of the hellenistic techniques do. I am still learning about this whole area myself. I simply opened the topic to share and hopefully learn more.

I have a different translation of Paulus as mine is by Dorian Greebaum. As I indicated earlier I will be checking it out myself over the weekend and will try and get back when I have studied it more thoroughly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
James E.



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Canada

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thank you for your reply MarkC,

I also have Dorian Greenbaum's translation of Paulus and will check for this topic. I did see something relating to the monomoiria by Trigon on p134, but then the article does not focus on that study.

Although a full time astrologer for the last 30 years, I am also new to Hellenistic techniques and find it quite amazing! I have yet a lot to learn in that department though.

Nice of you to welcome me aroud...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sasha_i



Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 288
Location: Bucuresti

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gjiada wrote:

Quote:
I don't know if the English version is the same (Italian one is full of other texts so I don't understand very well how the book is organized) but in chapter 5 scholium 15 they write "Omit these one (monomoiria of stars)and apply yourself to the 30th chapter (monomoiria of triplicities)"
Do you have the same in English version?
Is it the one given in Bezza CD?


My version is also in Italian, but at the end of the chapter 5 I have two fragments. The second one, the one I mentioned earlier, explain that this chapter should be corroborated with chapter 8, 9 and 10

I am quoting from the second fragment (named scolio 15):
"Viene stabilita la tabella della monomoiria, la quale giova a conoscere i segni che hanno affinita tra loro pur se fossero disgiunti e remoti e alla conoscenza dei segni che hanno uguale cintura e che sminuiscono il lor carattere nocivo per il loro ritrovarsi nei medesimi domicili o per l'ascendere in uguali tempi o per l'essere configurati. Leggi l'otavo, il nono e il decimo capitolo e confrontali con questa tabela della monomoiria e leggi inoltre tutto il commmento a Paolo a partire dalla meta dell'otavo capitolo"


Last edited by sasha_i on Fri Aug 29, 2008 9:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sasha_i



Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 288
Location: Bucuresti

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi again Gjiada:

I have also the passage mentioned by you in the end of scolio 15, but in the first part of scolio 15 in my version is the text above mentioned
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
margherita



Joined: 10 Mar 2008
Posts: 1359
Location: Rome, Italy

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sasha_i wrote:


I am quoting from the second fragment (named scolio 15):
"Viene stabilita la tabella della monomoiria, la quale giova a conoscere i segni che hanno affinita tra loro pur se fossero disgiunti e remoti e alla conoscenza dei segni che hanno uguale cintura e che sminuiscono il lor carattere nocivo per il loro ritrovarsi nei medesimi domicili o per l'ascendere in uguali tempi o per l'essere configurati. Leggi l'otavo, il nono e il decimo capitolo e confrontali con questa tabela della monomoiria e leggi inoltre tutto il commmento a Paolo a partire dalla meta dell'otavo capitolo"


Well, reading this it seems to me that monomoiria of stars is not a dignity but a familiarity. In fact they mention chapter 8 (signs seeing each other), 9 (signs commanding and obeying) and 10 (trine, exagon, square and diameter).

Anyway, I have not experience with this method.
I see that they use the monomoiria of triplicities to rectify the chart. Someone tried this method?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
sasha_i



Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 288
Location: Bucuresti

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good to see you back!

Well reading the fragment, this seems to be the logical conclusion to me (if I understand it well-Italian isn't my first language). the text doesn't mention explicitly the mitigating effect of monomoiria.

Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sasha_i



Joined: 06 Apr 2005
Posts: 288
Location: Bucuresti

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I tried to find the Greek text of Olimpiodorus about monomoiria in my collection of Greek texts, but until now I discovered only a chapter about monomoiria calculated according to the second system (trigon).
I am very, very weak at Greek, but probably after many hours I will understand something.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The table of monomoiria in Ema Kurent's article uses zero and we all know that the zero whas not used in hellenistic times. In Schmidt's [Project Hindsight's] translation (1), the table of Monomoiria starts at 1 and ends at 30...

May I ask which table one should work with?


Both approaches are equally valid in practice. In Dorian Greenbaum's translation she lists the degrees from 1-30. Lets take an example from the first system of Monomoiria presented by Paulus which I will call Domicile ruler/Chaldean order based: Mars at 0'50 Aries could be represented under O degrees in a table running 0-29. In The Greebaum table this is represented as 1 which as you suggest is more authentic to the hellenistic approach. However, if using the Greenbaum table you have to remove 1 from the number listed to get its modern degree listing. Ema Kurent has saved you the trouble so that you know that any placement less than 1 degree in sign is represented 0. In either case the Monomoiria is Mars. With your Sun at 3'20 Taurus you would look under under 4 degrees in Greenbaum's 1-30 degree table and 3 degrees in Ema Kurent's. This would make Saturn the Monomoiria of that degree. I assume Ema converted the original arrangement to make it easier for modern astrologers to understand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
James E.



Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 105
Location: Canada

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I assume Ema converted the original arrangement to make it easier for modern astrologers to understand.


You are absolutely right! I should have thought of that since I made the same type of "correction" when reading either Valens or Paulus on profection years...

Silly me Confused

Thanks for the clatification MarkC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been taking a deeper look at the Monomoiria through Dorian Greebaum's translation of Paulus & Olympiodorus and Robert Zoller's translation of Liber Hermetis.

As Ema Kurent article indicates there are several distinct kinds of Monomoiria used by the Hellenistic astrologers.

The first is based on the domicile ruler of the sign and proceeds following the Chaldean order of the planets. The second system is based on assigning each of the degrees to different triplicity rulers. However, as we shall see there are variations within that type of system

The first method is presented by Paulus in book 5 of his 'Introductory Matters' starts in each sign with the domicile ruler and continues following the Chaldean Order of the Planets. Thus the monomoiria of the first degree of Aries is Mars, while the second is the Sun since this is the next planet after Mars in Chaldean order. The sequence of planets then continues in Chaldean order until the end of the sign.

Because of joint rulership of the signs the sequence of monmoiria is identical for Aries/Scorpio, Taurus/Libra, Gemini/Virgo, Sagittarius/Pisces and Capricorn/Aquarius.

For anyone not familiar with the Chaldean order of planets here is the sequence: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon. It reflects the visible planets as held to have been proposed by the ancient Babylonian astrologers. This reflects their position in the Celestial planetary spheres (Saturn in the outermost and Moon in the innermost). From a modern perspective, the order expresses the relative speed of the planets, from slowest to fastest.

Those familiar with planetary hour rulers will be conversant with this approach. As Ema Kurent indicates this system is quite straightfoward and logical. There is also no ambiguity connected to this system of Monomoiria unlike the triplicity ruler based systems.

I have already been looking at lots of charts with these monomoiria and I am very impressed at the initial results and intend to explore this further. I am not sure if it is consistent with hellenistic practice but I have also had a look at the Monomoiria on angles and they seem quite revealing.

The Triplicity system of Monomoria is another matter entirely. These are presented by Paulus in chapter 32 of the 'Introductory Matters' and in chapter 34 of the Commentary on Paulus Alexandrinus by Olympiodorus. First of all lets recap that the system of trigon or triplicity rulers in discussion here is the system of Dorotheus of Sidon outlined in his work the 'Carmen Astrologicum'. This was the triplicity system used by nearly all the hellenistic astrologers (excluding Ptolemy), and by later Arab and medieval astrologers. It differs from the system attributed to Ptolemy and used by early modern astrologers like William Lilly. Paulus lists the Trigon (Triplicity) in the following order:

Trigon (Triplicity) 1 ( Fire) Sun/Jupiter

Trigon (Triplicity) 2 (Earth) Venus/Moon

Trigon ( Triplicity) 3 (Air) Saturn/Mercury

Trigon (Triplicity) 4 (Water) Venus/Mars

Note: Diurnal triplicity ruler first/Nocturnal triplicity ruler second

Dorian Greenbaum explains the difficulties in establishing the trigonal monomoiria in her translation:

Quote:
’Though the reasoning how each trigonal monomoiria is determined seems clear in the text, the tables are another story completely. Both Paulus and Olympiodurs texts have more than one table to accompany this chapter, and the tables in both texts often have planets missing , do not follow the reasoning of the text , or are just plain filled with errors. The table presented above seems closet to the reasoning of the text , though there could be another interpretation of the order of the planets’’.


Greenbaum then explains an alternative possibility of arranging the table before outlining what she thinks is the most plausible arrangment. To keep things reasonably manageable here I will only include the main criteria Greenbaum lists for determining the Monomoria by Trigon.

Quote:
‘’1 Use the sect Lords, beginning with the diurnal lord for the day chart , the nocturnal one for the night.

2 Begin rulership of each trigon from its appropriate sect lords.

3 The diurnal lord rules the 1st degree in the diurnal chart; the nocturnal lord rules the 1st degree in a nocturnal chart. The second degree will reverse this order ; that is, the nocturnal lord rules the 2nd degree in a diurnal chart, the diurnal lord rules the 2nd degree in a nocturnal chart.

4 There are always pairs of degrees, the second degree reversing the order of the first; thus 15 pairs for the 30 degrees.

5 Do not give a planet rulership of another diurnal degree in the trigon until all the other planets have been used. In practice , this applies to Venus, the diurnal ruler of both the 2nd and 4th trigons.

6 In placing nocturnal rulers, we must be consistent about rulr 4: using pairs of degrees , thus pairs of planets, and reversing the order of them.

In regard to this last rule, something very interesting happens. Because we are consistent with rule 5, in not assigning a planet to the second degree until all the others have been used , we find that the nocturnal rulers of the first 7 degrees do repeat a planet, which is always the diurnal lord of the trigon. The nocturnal rulers of the second set of 7 degrees have a repeat planet which is the nocturnal ruler of the previous trigon. The nocturnal rulers of the third set of 7 degrees again repeat with the diurnal lord of the trigon, and the fourth set again doubles the planet which is the nocturnal ruler of the previous trigon. The last two degrees are always diurnal and nocturnal lords of the trigon.’’


As if the confusion of the trigon monomoiria in Paulus and Olympiodurus were not hard enough to deal with we find another variation presented in Liber Hermetis.

This is found in book XXXV entitled ‘On the Virtues of The Triplicities and Years of Life’

Rober Zoller in his introduction to the chapter comments:

Quote:
First of all it presents a system of monomoiria , that is individual degree triplicity rulerships. It is similar to the second of the two degree-rulership systems presented in Paulus Alexandrinus but it is different in one respect. In the Paulus system the degree rulerships alternate according to whether the chart is day or night. In the system here the rulerships are the same both night and day and depend instead on the sect of the triplicities. The first degree of any sign is ruled by the triplicity ruler that is of the same sect as the triplicitty, followed by the ruler from the other sect. The third degree is ruled by the ruler of the next triplicity according to that triplicity’s sect. the fourth is ruled by the other sect ruler of that triplicity, and so forth. No ruler is used twice , like the Paulus system. If the earth triplicity rulers come up first, then Venus is used with earth. If water comes up first, then Venus is used as a water ruler. For example in Leo, the first degree would be of the Sun, then Jupiter, these being the diurnal and nocturnal rulers, respectively of that triplicity. The next two degrees would be ruled by the Moon and Venus, the next two by Saturn and Mercury, and then a Mars degree. The sequence then repeats itself at the end of Leo.’’
( Liber Hermetis, Hermes Trismegistus, translated by Robert Zoller, p71)


Zoller considers the unique aspect of the monomoiria presented in Liber Hermetis is that they are used to compute life expectancies based on the position and periods of the rulers of the degrees. In particular Zoller states the system outlined is one of the degrees of monomoiria ruling the degree of the Part of Fortune. The ruler of that degree gives its planetary period to the life of the native according to where that ruler is, in the chart.


So from my initial look at this we seem to have four options here:

1 The first system of monomoiria outlined by Paulus using domicile ruler/chaldean order of the planets

2/3 The second system of monomoiria presented by Paulus and Olympiodorus. Greenbaum believes the confusion in the text means there is two alternative ways to arrange the Trigon rulers

4 The system presented in Liber Hermetis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One important Hellenistic text I do not have is the Anthology by the second century astrologer Vettius Valens.

According to this piece from Curtis Manwering's hellenistic astrology website 'The Lost Horoscope X Files' the Monomoiria of Valens operated as follows:

Quote:
The one described herein is pretty straightforward, and is described in Chapt. 26 of Valens' Book IV (pg 62) as the Division of the Times, In Accordance with the Seven-Zoned Sphere Upwards, in the manner of Critodemos.....The periods assigned to the planets come from the ascending order of the spheres: Moon, 1 year; Mercury, 2 years; Venus, 3 years; Sun, 4 years; Mars, 5 years; Jupiter, six years; Saturn, 7 years. They total 28 years. The starting point is determined by the monomoiria of the Moon. The monomoiria are the type listed in Paulus, where the first degree of a sign is ruled by the sign's domicile lord, and the successive degrees follow in the descending Chaldean order.

The ruler of the Moon's degree is the first time lord; successive lords follow in the order they fall in the nativity. After 28 years, you start again from the planet that was the second time lord. Example:

The Moon in Hitler's chart is in the 7th degree of CAP, who's ruler just happens to be the Moon, so the Moon gets the first period which is one year. The next planet in zodiacal order is Jupiter, so it's the second time lord, for a period of 6 years. Mercury gets the next 2 years, the Sun gets the next 4 years, Mars the next 5 years, Venus the next 3 years, and Saturn the last 7 years of the first 28 year cycle. The next cycle starts with Jupiter as the planet following the planet that started the first cycle. After Jupiter's 6 years comes Mercury's 2 years, the Sun's 4 years, and so forth until the Moon's 1 year completes the second 28 year cycle. The third 28 year cycle starts with Mercury's 2 years. If he would have lived past 84, the fourth cycle would have started with the Sun's 4 years.

There are no sub-periods or co-operating lords.


http://www.astrology-x-files.com/help-delphicoracle/lunar-monomoiria.html

To put this simply:

1 Go to the Moon and check its degree ruler in the monomoiria table
2 Use the Moon ruler as the first planet in the sequence.
3 The sequence of planets continues in zodiacal order as they are spread out in the chart.
4 The time period for each planet follows the Chaldean associations: Moon, 1 year; Mercury, 2 years; Venus, 3 years; Sun, 4 years; Mars, 5 years; Jupiter, six years; Saturn, 7 years.
5 Once you have completed a cycle of 28 years start again from the planet that was the second time lord.

We can therefore see two examples in Valens and Liber Hermetis of the monomoiria linked to the time lords in a natal chart. In the former with the Moon, while in the latter with the Part of Fortune. They also seem to have had some significance in consideration of planets in relationship.


So what about the use of monomoiria in basic natal analysis?

The Scholia which represents commentaries on Paulus from later Byzantine astrologers seems to imply that if planets are connected through the monomoiria it can lessen and indeed reverse any negative influences between otherwise unconnected or averse planets.

Dorian Greenbaum comments in her footnote to this section:

Quote:
‘This Scholion appears to be somewhat corrupt textually. The first part explains that, because the monomoiria are assigned on the basis of like –engirding zoidia ( zoidia with the same ruler) , we can see that those zoidia are ‘sympathetic’. Even when they are ‘unconnected’ ( that is making no aspect to each, Aries-Scorpio, for example). The scholion then refers to chapter 8-10 of Paulus for information on zoidia sympathetic to each other by various means. Strangely, it then talks about the concept of application and separation in connection to monomoiria’


I may be incorrect but my understanding of this is that it seems to imply that planets in monomoiria can be connected and seen to relate cooperatively if they have the same monomoiria ruler? If that is correct this seems a bit similar to Ibn Ezra's concept of 'generousity' or 'liberality' when planets receive each other in their dignities but are not in aspect.


What is intriguing though is how the hellenistic astrologers viewed planets in aspect when one planet was in the monomoiria of the other. This seems even more like a kind of reception. Ema Kurent’s article said there was one example of Valens using this technique in the collected horoscopes in 'Greek Horoscopes'. In particular, Valens apparently makes use of this concept in one case, namely in horoscope No. L497 where he states that Mars is in the monomoiria of the Moon. I will check this out for myself.

There may of course be other examples of Valens and other hellenistic astrologers using the monomoiria. If any of you have the Robert Schmidt's translation of Valen's Anthology it would be very interesting to see what Schmidt actually says about the monomoiria in his comments.


Last edited by Mark on Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been having a look at the Matheseos by the late fourth century Roman astrologer Firmicus Maternus to see if he refers to the monomoiria.

While I spotted several references to important degree points I couldn't see anything approximating to Monomoiria. Lots of references to fixed stars and other undetermined important degree points but no monomoiria as far as I can tell so far.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Mark
Moderator


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 4954
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland

Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hello Steven,

Thank you for spotting that error.

In the quote I gave Curtis was clear on this:

Quote:
The ruler of the Moon's degree is the first time lord; successive lords follow in the order they fall in the nativity. After 28 years, you start again from the planet that was the second time lord


So it was my slip up. I will retrospectively correct that so as to minimize confusion.

Any other comments on Valens and the monomoiria?
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
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