✳WitchcraftDaily⌕
Browse sections
JOHN DEE · ANTWERP 1564 · PRINTED SYMBOLS

Is the Monas Hieroglyphica an Enochian Symbol?

Dee authored both the Monas and later angelic records, but their dates, diagrams, and textual purposes remain distinct.

STAR & SIGIL

Browse the Star & Sigil spellbook library

Open the spellbook library
Compare these recordsPrinted copies, later manuscripts, surviving objects, and modern interpretations are identified separately.

Two projects with different internal structures

The Monas is a Latin book printed at Antwerp in 1564. Its twenty-four numbered theorems form a visual argument: point, line, circle, lunar crescent, cross, and Aries-like horns are introduced, counted, separated, and recombined until the completed glyph can organize celestial, elemental, numerical, and alchemical claims. The title-page emblem previews the result, while the theorem order controls how a reader reaches it.

The later records commonly called Enochian are organized differently. Dated conversations preserve questions, attributed speech, corrections, and instructions; separate manuscript books collect the Keys, Heptarchia, and earthly knowledge; tables distribute letters across cells; physical objects put selected diagrams into wax, wood, or paint. Calling the Monas an Enochian seal collapses a printed theorem sequence and a later documentary archive into one imagined object.

The distinction concerns argumentative logic as well as date. The 1564 book asks one graphic vocabulary to generate many correspondences through staged demonstration. The angelic records repeatedly ground authority in reported communication and in the making or correction of particular objects. Geometry is present in both projects, but it does different work inside each surviving source.

The Monad, seal, table, and letter grid do different jobs

The Monas is one composed glyph developed through twenty-four theorems. The Sigillum Dei Aemeth is a circular design with concentric registers and polygonal structures, recorded in the later conferences and embodied in surviving wax discs. The Holy Table is a square furnishing whose border and central design are described as parts of a working surface. Shape follows textual function: theorem figure, inscribed seal, and ritual furniture are not three editions of one diagram.

The Great Table is different again. Four lettered quadrants are joined by a central cross, and names are read through ordered cells. A changed letter can therefore alter a name and disclose which witness or reconstruction a chart follows. The Table of Nalvage uses another arrangement connected with the Calls. These tables organize letters and derived names; the Monad organizes a sequence of geometrical transformations.

Material form reinforces the difference. The Monas survives as repeated woodcut states in a printed book. The Sigillum survives in manuscript description, engraving, and wax objects. The Great Table travels through diary record, manuscript compilation, seventeenth-century print, and later teaching plates. A modern composite may place them on one page, but the historical witnesses never make them interchangeable.

Worked figure comparison: theorem VI’s cross and the Great Table’s Black Cross

Theorem VI places the solar circle and lunar crescent on two perpendicular lines. Dee counts the same construction several ways: two lines and their joining point expose a ternary, four radiating segments a quaternary, and four right angles another count. The cross converts celestial figures into elemental and numerical relations without reading letters along its arms.

The Great Table’s Black Cross has another grammar. It joins four lettered quadrants, and later sources connect its letters with the Tablet of Union. In the recorded Black Cross discussion, placing E in the first square and grouping the remaining letters affects named sequences; elsewhere, a changed cell can turn GAIOL into GAICH. Here the cross is a field whose positions and letter choices govern readings. Its meaning depends on adjacency, copying, and the selected witness rather than on counting four right angles.

The comparison produces a precise answer to the page’s question. Both figures can be called crosses, and both participate in a larger diagram, but theorem VI transforms strokes by geometrical enumeration while the Great Table transforms cells by ordered reading. Moving the Monas cross into a Watchtower chart would remove it from the theorem sequence that gives it force. Calling the Black Cross a late state of the Monad would erase its letters, quadrant function, and manuscript variants.

What later synthesis adds; and what the witnesses still resist

Later occult systems could place Dee’s printed philosophy beside the angelic archive and treat both as parts of one intellectual career. That synthesis has a historical subject of its own: it shows how later readers selected continuity in geometry, signs, cosmic order, and the hope for a universal language. It does not demonstrate that the 1564 theorem sequence secretly encodes the Calls or Watchtowers delivered two decades later.

The witnesses preserve meaningful differences inside each tradition as well. The 1564 copies fix a numbered printed argument, while later translations can alter the vocabulary through which that argument is read. The Great Table record preserves corrections and alternative cells; Casaubon’s print selects and typesets material from the diaries; the 1912 Watch-Tower plates impose a later directional and elemental teaching arrangement. A diagram labeled only “Dee” hides those editorial stages.

Read together, the sources show continuity of attention rather than identity of design. Dee repeatedly used bounded figures to coordinate kinds of knowledge, but the Monas derives one emblem through theorems, the Sigillum orders registers on a seal, the Holy Table turns signs into furniture, and the Great Table turns letters into a spatial reading system. The comparison is strongest when those internal logics remain visible.

Source records

Continue in the reading room