Interesting topic.

Here is the natal chart of George W. Bush with the 12th part of each planet on the outside of the wheel:
Does anyone think that the 12th parts of the planets add additional information to the delineation of his natal chart?

Stellarium wrote:Interesting topic.

Does anyone think that the 12th parts of the planets add additional information to the delineation of his natal chart?

Stellarium,

I have to admit that I don't understand the positions of the stars on the outside of the wheel.

As yet I thought the dodecatemoria to be spaces, two and a half degree each, within every sign for all the planets and the luminaries. The allotment is done by assigning to each single sign all the twelve signs in the Zodiacal order giving the first dodecatemorion (0 - 2.5) to the sign itself, the next (2,5 - 5) to the folowing sign, &c. and the last dodecatemorion (27,5 -30) to the last sign before the actual sign. Thus the first of Taurus is given to Taurus, the second to Gemini, &c., and the last one to Aries. First of Gemini to Gemini, second to Cancer, the last one to Taurus. Each planet has two dodecatemoria in each sign and 24 in the Zodiac then.

So why is every planet posited only once on the outside?

In his Astronomica, II., Manilius describes also a second method to find the dodecatemoria (722-737), and at last a differentiation of the first method by giving one fith of a dodecatemorion ( = 0.5 degr.) to each planet (738-744).

I wonder if anybody could explain the second method (II., 722-737).

Johannes

I haven't got Manilius to hand, but since Babylonian times there have been two methods of calculating dodecatemoria. One in effect divides a sign into 12 parts distributed through the zodiac and beginning with the sign itself (that is, the first dodecatemorion in Virgo belongs to Virgo, and the last to Leo); the other does the same but has 13 parts (that is, the first dodecatemorion in Virgo belongs to Virgo, the 12th to Leo, and the last to Virgo). Both systems are present in Indian as well as Greek sources. Does this explanation agree with Manilius?

(Incidentally, Indian astrology also knows a division of each sign into 60 parts. I don't know whether that is an indigenous development.)

sulme wrote:Okay, sorry for the chaos, I clearly mispelt it.

it says on <duodecatemoria> on my Methesis, which is translated by Jean Rhys Bram.

I dont know where I came up with such a spelling though

My guess is he misspelled it?

By the way, im a 'she' if you didnt know

Oh no !
Don't kill the discussion so quickly.
You probably got from the auto-correction of spelling by the computer and there ii is in the Oxford dictionary as well:

?dodecatemory noun. E17?E18.
[ORIGIN Greek d?dekat?morion, from d?dekaton, fem. -t?, twelfth + morion a part.]

A twelfth part; esp. (Astrology) each of the twelve houses of the zodiac; a twelfth part of a sign, 212 degrees.

duodecad /0dju:?(?)?d?kad/ noun. Also -ade /-e?d/. E17.
[ORIGIN Late Latin duodecas, -cad- twelve: cf. decade.]

A group of twelve; a period of twelve years.

I need help because I know nothing about latin.
But, I noticed 12 and 13 being discussed.

In latin 12 is duodeci..
and 13 is decatressis
http://www.latin-dictionary.net/definit ... ecatressis

latin dictinary doesn't give me duodeca as 12.
for the 12th part it should be duodecim

PD

FINAL EDITION (I edited this post several times)

@johannes:

I'm not familiar with your method. All the while I thought the procedure was this:

1. Take the planet's degrees and minutes.
2. Multiply by 12 or 13 (depends on your source).
3. Count that number of degrees and minutes starting from the 0th degree of the sign the planet is in, in zodiacal order.

For example, if Kronos is at 2 degrees Taurus. Multiplying by 12, we get 24. From the 0th degree of Taurus, counting 24 degrees in zodiacal order, we get 24 degrees Taurus.

If you use the 13th harmonic method, then we have to count in zodiacal order 26 degrees. That means that the dodecatemorion is at 26 degrees Taurus.

johannes susato wrote:In his Astronomica, II., Manilius describes also a second method to find the dodecatemoria (722-737), and at last a differentiation of the first method by giving one fith of a dodecatemorion ( = 0.5 degr.) to each planet (738-744).

I wonder if anybody could explain the second method (II., 722-737).

Johannes

sounds like a 60th harmonic (which martin mentioned in passing) given that a 0.5 of a degree per sign will make 60 wedges per sign..

A few brief comments to add to this thread:

Manilius states about dodecteamoria in II 693-695:

Perspice nunc tenuem uisu pondere magnam
et tantum Graio signari nomine passam
dodecatemoria, in titulo signantia causas

='consider now a seemingly secondary question but weighty,
which can only be defined by the Greek name
dodekatemoria, by which term explains [their] effectivity.'

The term *d?dekat?morion* is used in astrological sources with several meanings.

1) The most generic sense refers to the 12th part of the zodiac, or a sign.

2) Like *d?dekat?morian* *d?dekat?moriou* indicates the 12th part of a sign, that is 2?20'. The first dodekatemorion of a sign is governed by the sign itself, the second by the successive sign and so on. This is put forth by Manilus in II.696-721; Sextus Empiricus, Aduersus
Mathematicorum V,9; cf. Ptolemaeus I,22.1 *top?n men (upotithemenoi tou
d?dekat?mopiou d?dekat?morion, touesti moiras b' umisu kai didontes autou t? kureian tois epheks?s z?diois* ='intending for place the 12th part of a sign, that is 2 degrees and an half and assigning the governorship on it to the successive signs.

Subdivisions in alternate groups of 2?30' masculine and feminine are evinced by Dorotheus (I 7,8; cf. Valens I 11) and in Hephestius Thebanus, (Apotelesmatica, ed. D. Pingree, Lipsuiae 1973-74, III 4,23-24) who specifies the value and significance of all the 144 (12 x 12) groups in the zodiac. A planet therefore, quite beyond the influence of the sign it happens to occupy, will also recieve an influence from the sign (or planet) which occupies the dodekatemorion upon which it transits.

To discover the dodekatemorion of a planet one must count the degrees of its position (e.g., Luna at 14? Arietis), divide by 2?30', assigning each group to a sign of the zodiac, starting from the sign of the transit (0?-2?30': Arietis; 2?31'- 5?: Tauri; 5?01'-7?30' Gemellorum; 7?31'-10?: Cancri; 10?01'-12?30': Leonis; 12?31'-15?: Verginis) and place the dodekatemorion in the sign reached with the operation, which in this example would be Verginis. Cf. Porphyry, Introductio In Tetrabiblum, ed. A.Boer-S. Weinstock, CCAG V, 4 ?39, Hephestius, cit., I 18; CCAG I, p. 93.3).

The term is also valid for the planetary dodekatemoria, which consist of the transfer of the planets from their original position in a natal chart to other positions in order to determine a point of greater effect. This procedure is parallel to the doctrine of the *kl?roi* or points (cf. Manilius III.160ff.), which also effects a transfer of the zone of influence, but using two points in the horoscope and the point of their convergence.

The method of the planetary dodekatemoria consists in counting the degrees of the position of a planet in a sign, multiplying by 12 and then transferring the resulting product upon the circumference whilst starting from the position of the planet, counting 30? per sign. The point obtained by this operation will indicate the dodekatemorion. E.g., Luna at 14? Arietis: 14 x 12 = 168. Addition of 168 to 14 will yield 182? which is read as 2? of Libra.

Paulus of Alexandria (Elementa Apotelesmatica, ed. A. Boer, Lipsiae, 1958), 12 simplifies for the stupid this calculation. He counsels the mathematically handicapped to simply multiply by 13 and start off, hare-like, from the beginning of the sign which hosts the planet (for which cf. also Heliodoros, commentarium, ed. A. Boer, Lipsiae, 1962: 19,12). Put even more simply: 14 x 13 = 182 = 2? of Libra. The result obtained by this method will coincide with the result obtained by the previous method _only if_ the number of degrees of the initial position is rather low. The two methods will would however forever converge if the result is ever taken from the beginning of the sign and not from the position of the planet in that sign.

Rhetoricus list three methods to discover the dodekatemoria.
1) the multiplication by 13 of Paulus of Alexandria;
2) the multiplication by 12 of Dorotheos (confirmed in Hephestius I, 18; Firmicus II 13, 2-3 and Heliodoros 19, for whom this method seems to have an origin in Egyptian sources, cf. Heliodorus 21, but that is probably only the Late Antique penchant for mixing up Babylonia with ?gyptia and supposing that ?egyptia was the fons et origio sapientiae, which is,
obviously, only one of their sillier ideas with no basis in fact.

3) Contrasting the two above systems Rhetorius manifests that he does not understand that the the result of both is obtained from the beginning of the sign and not from the position of the planet. The third method he evidences (CCAG I, p. 154; cf. CCAG VIII 3, p.116) is that of
Ptolemaeus (I 22, 1) which consists of the grouping of 2?30' segments in the signs successive to that under examination.

The methods which Rhetoricus ascribes to Dorotheus and to Ptolemaeus give the same result, as multiplying by 12 is aequivalent to dividing by 2?30' (cf. Commentarium in Ptol. p.28 *(ai gar duo (umisu analogousi t? triakost? arithm?* = 'calculating 2?30' is aequivalent to calculating 30? per sign).

Porphyry 39, with the method of 2?30' evidences another system of calculation of the dodekatemoria of the Luna. Count the degrees which separate the Luna from the Sol, divide by 30 and report the quotient of said division to the circumference starting from the sign which the Luna occupies, assigning 2?30' to each sign:
*tines de all?s lambanousi to t?s Sel?n?s d?dekat?morion. id?v posas tou
(?liou apexei moipas, ek tout?v (osas an ex? triakontadas aire, tas de
loipas epimepize Weinstock> ava duo (misu, ap' ou av epex?tai (?
Sel?n?s z?diou*
='some calculate the dodekatemoria differently from the Lune: they substract the multiples of 30 from the number of degrees of distance from the Lune to the Sun and carry over the result onto the circumference starting from the sign which contains the Lune, assigning to each sign two and an half degrees'.
On the whole problem see Bouch?-Leclercq, L'Astrologie, 1899 P. 299 and Housman, Manilio II, 1912 p. xxii ff.

Manilius seems to testify to a combination of systems: to find the dodekatemorion of the Lune one must multiply the number of degrees of its position by 12 (v. 728, not because 12 is the number of signs of the zodiac, as the poet explains, but perhaps he is wrong in that given the
Babylonian evidence, but because dividing by 12 is so much more easy than dividing by 2?30'), assign to the sign of the Lune 30? (one adds 30? no matter how vv 729-30 are understood): the degrees of the position of the Lune plus the complementary distance to 30?, to so arrive at the end of the sign or the degrees counted in the sign of the Lune plus then, the preceding degrees of the Lune itself, so explain respectively Bouch?-Leclercq and Housman, assign 30 degrees to the successive signs, until the multiples of 30 run out. The remaining number, divided by groups of 2?30' must then be partitioned amongst the signs until then run out. The sign arrived at by this operation will be the dodekatemrion of the Lune.

Given that the multiplication by 12 is aequivalent to the division by 2?30' (because each sign is given to 2?30' segments of 30 degrees) we can see that three methods are given by Manilius, viz., 1) multiply by 12;2) subtract the multiples from 30;3) use the result assigning 2?30' to each sign. If one uses the beginning of the sign and not the position of the planet, the result of 1) + 2) is aequivalent to the result of 3).

For this reason verses 732-34, or the third of the operations was considered an interpolation by numerous editors. There is however the possibility that Manilius was using a source which found the dodekatemorion of the Lune with the method set out by Porphyry(cit.). This would then entail the eventuality of a distance between the Luna and Sol superior to 30? and thus lead one to subtract the multiples of 30- before proceeding to do the 2?30' calculations. The supposed source of Manilius must therefore have listed more methods for the calculation of the dodekatemoria (cf. v. 722 : *nec genus est unum, ratio nec prodita simplex*).

One can not exclude that the ambiguity of the terms usually employed (*merismos, meriZein*) might have lead to a misunderstanding. The two significations of the verb (divide and distribute) thus become two different functions. If a system spoke of multiplication by 12 and of
*merizein* (distribution) of the result according to the order of the signs and another system spoke of *merismos* (division) by 30 if the number of degrees envisioned were to be superior to 30 (see the passage from Porphyry), from the fact that a multiplication by 12 gave almost always a result greater than 30 (for a position greater than 3?), it could well seem legitimate to subtract the multiples of 30 before proceding to the calculation by 2?30'

But the matter does not end there, although the problem does.

II, 738-48
Haec quoque te ratio ne fallat, percipe paucis
(maior in effectu minor est in partibus ipsis)
dodecatemorii quid sit quod dicitur esse
dodecatemorium. Namque id per quinque notatur
partes; nam totidem praefulgent sidera caelo
quae uaga dicuntur, ducunt et sigula sortes
dimidias, uiresque in eis et iura capessunt.
In quo quaeque igitur stellae quandoque locatae
dodecatemorio fuerint spectare decebit;
cuius enim stella in fines in sidere quoque
inciderit, dabit effectus in uiribus eius.

So that this other system doesn't fool you, get the brief notes
(to a greater influence there corresponds a minor one between the same
bits)
what it is that the dodecatemorion of the the dodecatemorion is.
It is scanned out in five parts; just as the same number of stars
shining sky-ho
called the wanders, and each of these controls half a degree,
in which they pick up energy and power.
So look out in what dodecatemorion and when each star is there,
in what sign, it will emanate its influence in that dodecatemorion.

So a dodecatemorion is a 12th part of a sign, and then we have the playfulness of a 12th part of the the 12 parts (zodiac divisions). Recall Ptolemaeus Tetrab. I,22,1 *to tou d?dekat?morious d?dekat?morion* (unlike some editors!). Now we go on further into the minute depths, as
each 2?30' segment is made up of five parts, considering each half degree as a unit.

It may well be that the source used by Manilius suggested, in order to overcome the difficulty of division by 2?30' to use a division by 5, thus converting the units into 5. This would I think point to a Babylonian source, as this would be a function of reciprocals, well attested in cuneiform sources. As already noted and widely known the division of zodiac signs into twelve 2?30' is a development attested in Seleucid cuneiform texts.

According to Manilius each of these five units contained in the 2?30' is assigned to one of the five wandering stars (planets), so that each planet would govern in each sign 12 units. However Manilius does not go further than this and does not list the order in which the planets are
apportioned in the five-units. Housman (cit.) II: xxvi proposes an order according to the distance of the planets from the sun: Saturnus, Iupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercurius. This is the order of the monomoiriai of Paulus of Alexandria, 5).

This five-partition appears as a hapax only in Manilius. There is a system of monomoririai brushed over by Ptolemaeus (I,22,1) who, however, assigns a degree (not half a degree) to the five planets in the order of the horia ("territories") as given by the Chaldaeans: Iupiter, Venus,
Saturnus, Mercurius, Mars, etc. Of course Commentarium in Ptolemaeo p. 48 comes up with his ridiculous ?gyptian origin theory again. However Paulus of Alexandria, 22, assigns all the degrees of each sign to the _seven_ celestial bodies. (Cf. 32, and Valens IV, 26).

There is another ancient garbled sub-division of the signs, which does use the _five_ planets, excluding the luminaries, as does Manilius (vv: 741-43), the hunchbacked doctrine of the horia (cf. Firmicus II,6 ?hos fines Graeci *(oria* uocant)? which has two different 'traditions' behind it, one ?gyptian and the other Chaldaean, which contradict each other and have no intelligible criteria, neither of them, for the order of the planets in the signs, nor for the quantity of degrees assigned to them. This esoteric doctrine is well-attested (Dorotheus, fr.8 Stegemann; Sextus Empiricus V,37; Ptolemaeus I.21; Valens I 3; Firmicus II 6; Paulus of Alexandria 3) but was consigned to the rubbish heap even in antiquity.

From Ptolemaeus however we do know that the so-called ?gyptian system assigned to the planets also fractions of a degree (I 21,8 *morios mori?n xp?sasthai*; cf. schol. 5 to Paulus of Alexandria,3) which might recall the 30' segments of Manilius.

The Manilian term *fines* (747) would lead one to consider the doctrine of the *horia*, also chopped up between the five 'wanderers' in each sign; then the groups of 2?30', or of five units, likewise chopped up between the big five, may have fascinated the poet and suggested to him
a connexion with the fantastic doctrine of the *horia*. But it is also possible that Manilius found this tomfoolery in his source. Atomists were known to have theories, and, perhaps, some acquaintance with Babylonian number tables, which I would posit as the ultimate source of
all subdivisions, including the great measuring stick in the eye of the sky-ho, the zodiac.

feliciter,
Lorenzo Smerillo

Martin Gansten wrote:I haven't got Manilius to hand, but since Babylonian times there have been two methods of calculating dodecatemoria. One in effect divides a sign into 12 parts distributed through the zodiac and beginning with the sign itself (that is, the first dodecatemorion in Virgo belongs to Virgo, and the last to Leo); the other does the same but has 13 parts (that is, the first dodecatemorion in Virgo belongs to Virgo, the 12th to Leo, and the last to Virgo). Both systems are present in Indian as well as Greek sources. Does this explanation agree with Manilius?

Thank, you, Martin!
Instead of a an answer I would prefer to quote Manilius as to the second method -

II, (725 - 735):
"Haec quoque comperta est ratio sub nomine eodem.
Quacumque in parti nascentum tempore Luna
constiterit, numeris hanc ter dispone quaternis,
sublimi totidem quia fulgent sidera mundo.
Inde suas illi signo, quo Luna refulsit,
quaeque hinc defuerant partes numerare memento.
Proxima tricenas pariterque sequentia ducunt.
Hic ubi deficiet numerus, tunc summa relicta
in binas sortes adiecta parte locetur
dimidia, reliquis tribuantur ut ordine singis.
In quo destituent, eius tum Luna tenebit
dodecatermorium signi; post cetera ducet
ordine quodque suo, sicut stant astra locata."

[. . . if you can read German, I could quote the Translation of Wolfgang Fels, in verses].

Interested in learning the meanings of dodecatemoria I would like to stick to the "first" method initially and being corrected as to my understanding of its calulation and 'mechanics':

johannes susato wrote:As yet I thought the dodecatemoria to be spaces, two and a half degree each, within every sign for all the planets and the luminaries. The allotment is done by assigning to each single sign all the twelve signs in the Zodiacal order giving the first dodecatemorion (0 - 2.5) to the sign itself, the next (2,5 - 5) to the folowing sign, &c. and the last dodecatemorion (27,5 -30) to the last sign before the actual sign. Thus the first of Taurus is given to Taurus, the second to Gemini, &c., and the last one to Aries. First of Gemini to Gemini, second to Cancer, the last one to Taurus. Each planet has two dodecatemoria in each sign and 24 in the Zodiac then???

Johannes

pankajdubey wrote:latin dictinary doesn't give me duodeca as 12.
for the 12th part it should be duodecim

At the best to my knowledge duodeca is a mix of Latin (duo-) and Greek (deka-) and thus cannot be found in a Latin dictionary.

Manilius did not translate the term and only changed the letters, changed the Greek k to the Latin c, and gave the latin ending -um, -a = dodecatemorium, dodecatemoria.

Larxene wrote:FINAL EDITION (I edited this post several times)

@johannes:

I'm not familiar with your method. All the while I thought the procedure was this:

1. Take the planet's degrees and minutes.
2. Multiply by 12 or 13 (depends on your source).
3. Count that number of degrees and minutes starting from the 0th degree of the sign the planet is in, in zodiacal order.

For example, if Kronos is at 2 degrees Taurus. Multiplying by 12, we get 24. From the 0th degree of Taurus, counting 24 degrees in zodiacal order, we get 24 degrees Taurus.

If you use the 13th harmonic method, then we have to count in zodiacal order 26 degrees. That means that the dodecatemorion is at 26 degrees Taurus.

Larxene, I don't have any method at all, never using dodecatemoria, nevertheless I would like to know all about this method. Thanks to your explanation I understand that there is only one dodekatemorion for each planet's position in the chart. But what is the meaning of the new positions of the planets in their dodecatemoria?

And how are the dodecatemoria allotted according to the method first mentioned by Manilius (12 x 2.5 degress for each sign within each sign), and how do they work?

Johannes

@Lorenzo and Johannes,

Thanks for the explanation.

In Indian astrology, dwadashamsha(12th division) chart is read for progeny issues(5th house), and I too would like to know what this 12th division was used for in hellenistic astrology- eg progeny, familial continuation.

PD