<Arabic script> darījān. Vullers describes this as an astrological rule according to which a Sign is divided into three parts and a planet assigned to each. The original Persian form is <Arabic script> darīgān. It is the dreshkāna or drekkāna of the Hindus. Albīrūnī (II. 222) says, “Further, there are the triangles, called drekkāna. There is no use in enlarging on them, as they are simply identical with the so-called draijānat of our system.” Unfortunately Albī­rūnī did not foresee a time when Arabian and Persian astrology would be forgotten and his Canon Masudicus a sealed book. Sachau speaks of it (there are four copies in Europe and one in the Mullā Fīrōz Library at Bombay) as awaiting the combination of two editors a scholar and an astronomer, but probably, a third, an astrologer, would also be required. Colebrooke says (Asiatic Researches IX. 367) that the dreshkāna answer to the decāni of European astrologers. The decāni also correspond to the wajh of Arabian astrologers and according to the Lucknow editor of the Akbarnāma, are called by Hindus ṣūrat, face. Decanus, according to Scaliger's notes on Manilius, (329) comes from the Latin and not from the Greek. The Luck. ed. gives an explanation of the word darījān (27) and the corresponding term drekkāna is explained in Bengali books on astrology. It seems that every sign is divided into three parts each of 10°, that the planet who presides over the sign, is lord of the first 10°, that the next 10° are ruled by the planet who presides over the Fifth Sign from that under division, and that the third 10° or drekkāna is ruled by the planet presiding over the Ninth Sign from that under division.

(With reference to the “triangles” in the above quotation from Sachau, it should be observed that the word in the original is <Arabic script> alalā, the plural of āli and should be translated thirds and not triangles. The drekkāna are not triangles but ten degrees or thirds of a Sign.)

<Arabic script> ādarjān. This word puzzled me for a long time. It is not to be found in the dictionaries except under the form <Arabic script> or <Arabic script>. They however do not explain even this word; saying only that it means “certain figures and mysteries in astrology.” (See Vullers 78 and Steingass.) The Lucknow editor (27) says that ādarjān is the same as wabāl, and he repeats this explanation at page 30. He there says also that ādarjān, is a fortitude or dignity superior to that of the darījān, but inferior to that of the wajh face. It is clear therefore that it cannot bear the same meaning as wabāl which is a debility and corresponds to the English detriment. Perhaps the editor connected it with auj, apsis or exaltation. Another explanation was sent me from India, to the effect that when two planets were in the same muallaat or triplicity, each was said to be the ādarjān or partner of the other. If this were so, the word might be connected with the Arabic <Arabic script> or <Arabic script> idraj or idrāj, a fold or folding; but I now believe this explanation is quite incorrect. The fact seems to be that ādarjān or ādarajān is merely a form of the word darījān and is probably nothing but that word with the Arabic article al prefixed. The word occurs in the Mafātīḥu-l-‘ulūm (ed. Vloten, Leyden 1895, 226) under the forms aldahaj and aldaraj and is there explained as synony­mous with wajh, ṣūrat and dārījān. The editor says it is the same as the Greek . That this explanation is correct appears from the Latin trans­lation of an early treatise on Astrology by an Eastern writer, commonly known as Alchabitius, but whose real name was ‘Abdu-l-‘azīz ibn ‘Umān Alqabīsī and who, according to the Biographie Universelle lived in the 10th century. He wrote a Madkhal or Introduction to Astrology which was trans­lated into Latin by Johannis Hispalensis and was several times reprinted. Its Arabic title is given in Ḥājī Khalfa's Lexicon (V. 473) as Madkhal fī ‘ilm-al-nujūm. In the Differentia Quarta (Cap. IV. The pages are not separately numbered, but this chapter is a few pages after dd4.) of this work, there is the following passage:—

“Modus inveniendi dominum decani.”

“Et ex hoc adorogen, hoc est ut dividas ascendens in tres partes; et sit omnis divisio 10 graduum; dabisque divisionem primam domino ascendentis; et secundam domino quinti signi ab eo; et tertium domino noni; nam ascendens, 5, et 9 una semper sunt triplicitas. Verbi gratiâ, ab initio Arietis usque in decimum gradum ejus est dorogen i. (i.e.) decanus est Martis. Et si fuerit ex 10 gradu usque 20 gradum erit ejus dorongen sol, dominus Leonis. Et si fuerit 20 usque in finem ejus erit dorongen Jupiter, dominus Sagittarii.”

The same volume contains a commentary on Alchabitius by John of Saxony and at M.M. 3, we have these words, “Et ex hoc adoringen. Hic docet invenire decanum.” This commentary, it seems, was written in 1331, though apparently not printed till 1485.

The book is in the British Museum, and there is another copy of Alchabitius and of John of Saxony's Commentary which was printed at Venice in 1521. In this, too, we have the expression, “Et ex hoc adorogen” and “et ex hoc adorogen.” This is the passage according to the Venetian editions of 1485 and 1521. In another edition, printed at Bologna in 1473 (B.M. press-mark 8610 d. 10.) we have the form abdorungen, but otherwise the wording is the same. It begins, “Et ex hoc abdorungen” and lower down has the important expression “ejus abdorungen, id est, decanus, est Mars.” The occurrence of the letter b certainly seems to favour the supposition that the first syllable is merely the Arabic article, the b being a misprint for l. As for the expression et ex hoc, the explanation is that the Differentia Quarta is a glossary of astro­logical terms and that et ex hoc seems a literal rendering of the Arabic <Arabic script> wa-minhu. The difficulty arising from A.F.'s using the word as if it were of different meaning. from darījān, his speaking, for instance, both of the darījān and ādarjān in the same passage.

This is due, I think, to the fact that each House of a horoscope consists of about 30° i.e., of three decanates or darījāns. Hence, in mentioning the dignities or properties of a House, instead of saying darījān and darījān or using the word wajh (face) three times over, he varies the expression for the sake of euphony. What the exact etymology of the word ādarjān or darījān is, I am unable to say. The varieties of spelling lead one to suppose it a foreign word. It is clear from Alchabitius, that ādarjān or ādarajān is the proper spelling, and that the form aradjān of the Bādshāhnāma and the Dictionaries is incorrect.

Most probably the word comes from the Greek , a triangle. I do not think it can come from , for I do not see how the letter r came to be inserted. It appears, from Sachau's Albīrūnī, that the word which in our dictionaries is spelled darījān is in Arabic draijān. I have suggested above that the first syllable or letter of ādarjān is the Arabic article, but there may be another explanation. As Persian does not admit of conjunct consonants at the beginning of words, it is possible that when the word was borrowed from the Arabic or the Greek, the dr or the tr of the Greek necessi­tated either a prosthetic or a medial vowel. Thus trīgonon or draijān became in Persian, either adrajān or darījān. In a similar manner we have both Iskandar and Sekandar as transliterations of Alexander and dirham for the Greek drachme, Firangi for Frank, etc. But if ādarjān comes from trigonon and not from decānus, it must still be acknowledged that it came to have the same meaning as decanate in English or drekkāna in Sanscrit, and is stated by Alchabitius to be the equivalent of decānus.

If anything were necessary to prove that the word ādarjān is identical in meaning with wajh, facies, I think it is furnished by the fact that Haly, (i.e., Abu-l-ḥasan ‘Alī ibn Abī-'l Rajāl al-Shaibānī) in his elaborate work on astrology, says nothing about darījān or ādarjān, though he has a chapter De Faciebus or, (as the Arabic has it) Fi-l-wujūh.

Moreover Guido Bonatus has this passage (ed. Basle 1550 825) De dorungez non dico hic (the passage occurs in a chapter on the triplicities) aliquid quoniam videtur spectare ad considerationem facierum, de quibus latius ac sufficienter dictum est superius in Tractatu primo in cap. ed Faciebus.

Scaliger has yet another spelling of darījān; he calls it dorogen and says the Arabs apply the term to the dodecatemoria. (Notes on Manilius 179 1.38.) This seems to be a mistake.