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.

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

Thanks for the clatification MarkC

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:

?

?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.

??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:

?

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

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:

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-d ... oiria.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:

?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.

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.

Hello Steven,

Thank you for spotting that error.

In the quote I gave Curtis was clear on this:

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?

Thanks Steven for a very illucidating reply on not just the monomoiria but hellenistic astrology in general.

... I don't think Valens personally put much faith in this particular method of time-lords

Fair enough, as you indicate Valens offers numerous methods of establishing Time-Lords so the monomoiria have nothing unique to offer in that respect.

But it seems to me that following the 3rd and 4th century, the monomoiria all but disappear except in their re-emergence in the Liber Hermetis.

Its a shame we do not have a more accurate idea when Liber Hermetis was written.

I happen to agree very much with a statement earlier (sorry not sure who make it) that the monomoiria were not dignities. What record we do have of their use is very vague but speaks rather clearly as to planets falling in monomoiria with the same ruler have a stronger familiarity with each other. We are directed to the chapters concerning the familiarities certain signs have to one another (chapt. 8-10) as to how these "faniliar degrees" work. At the same time we are referred to apsects and then given the reference point in Paulus' chapter on profections. He does have an example there in which the profected lord is in aversion (in Aries) to the sign of the profection (Virgo) and that there are some planets aspecting Mercury. So I can only assume that the earlier reference to the kinds of familiarities would affect just what happens in this example profection. But Paulus himself makes no reference in this chapter to monomoiria but I kind of think the Scholia is saying that there use is also valuable in such outcomes.

The monomoiria by triplicity appear to have been mainly used when the ascendant degree was not found accurately ("roughly" writes Olympiadorus) and it was used to determine a more accurate (sic) ascendant degree - I wouldn't exactly call it "rectification" but it was a means to "more closely" find a harmony between the ascendant and the chart ruler through a common monomoiria ruler which made them more "familiar" - so that in its own way does describe to some extent how these ancients regarded them and their "function".

Thanks for clarifying that point.

....it no longer represents the astrology I practice

If you do not mind a personal question here what is the type of astrology you now practice? Why did you give up the hellenistic approach?

At any rate, when I saw this thread I remembered that I had discussed the Monomoria in the 5th part I wrote in 2002. The Section was called, "The Whole Sign and nothing but the Sign" where I discussed something of the Hellenistic philosophy concerning "fate". The Greek word moiria had two meanings. It meant degree and fate and its significance was that a certain "fate" was apportioned to a degree or certain groups of degrees which were "whole" in their own right- The word dodecatemoria for example is telling us that 12th parts (2.5 degrees) were an entity apportioned a certain fate (determined by its ruler). The simplest of these apportionments was the monomoria - one fate per degree.

Without going into a lot of philosophy, the function of the monomoiria was seen that there was a "familiarity" because planets in degrees having a same "fate" were familiar. In the section I actually used the upcoming chart of the 2003 Ingress for the US. In reading back over it I was a bit astonished at what I wrote because of what happened on the eve of the 2003 Ingress.

As you indicate there is real paucity of material to reach any definitive conclusions. Apart from judging planets in the same planetary monomoiria having a familiarity I am intrigued how the hellenistic astrologers like Paulus might have viewed planets in monomoiria degrees ruled by each other. Was there a kind of 'mutual reception' by monomoiria in aspect in this way? We haven't much to go on just relying on the sources left to us.

Your use of monomoiria on the 2003 Ingress chart sounds most interesting. Can I ask what system of monomoiria you were using?

Any chance you might share more details of your use of monomoiria in that chart? I am sure those following this thread would be fascinated to hear your comments.

Hello Steven,

Thanks again. Your input has really helped to put the monomoiria in its proper context in hellenistic astrology.

Those examples you have given have further inspired me to start exploring this topic more in my practical astrology. I certainly have a real attraction to the first system of Paulus & Valens. There does seem lots of scope to investigate the monomoiria in all kinds of charts such as horary, natal, electional and mundane.

If anyone has any further examples of the MM in charts to share it would be good to see.

Steven,

It was a long process of re-discovering my roots as an astrologer. culminating in 2004 as a graduate of Robert Zollers diploma course.

Robert Zoller's course is Medieval, have you switched from Medieval to Hellenistic? Which do you find more accurate for predicting? I do not seem to have the time to devote to study as most of you.

I started the Medieval, and now it seems the Hellenistic is all the buzz. As you know it is a very time consuming study, espcially with my propensity to question everything I read and re-analyze it, ponder it, turn it around, look for real life examples where it holds true, and brings valid, tangible results. And dealing with my fear of accepting a method and proceeding with it as if it is true, then later finding out it wasn't.

Only the times that I except something without question, does it always seem to nip me in the bud!! Never fails! I don't want to do that to any one's reading as I am sure no-one does! But I guess I remember those mistakes the most!

So which methods do you find to be most accurate?

thanks so much for all your input, it's great!!

Hello Steven,

To really have a good understanding of what the early medieval astrologers were doing, one has to have a good understanding of the methods of the Hellenistic period....Hellenistic astrology introduced many such axioms which became the foundations of later applications. Solar Returns, profections, directing a significator through the "bounds" and chronocrators are all found in Hellenistic astrology

Extremely well put! That makes it very clear, it is the foundation upon which to build on! Thanks, your comments are always appreciated and very helpful!

bump

A few names changed and the posts of ?Steven missing.
9 years and so many missing fragments ;why blame the ancients if whole texts got lost in a millennia