13
I actually agree with you on that Mark - I think what distinguishes essential dignity from accidental fortitude may be difficult to always ascertain. I remember you had a topic on whether sect was qualitative or quantitative before which overlaps with some of these concepts.

I think can have some of its quality altered by accidental position but really my post was more against the notion of lumping everything together like it's all the same. I wanted to make a crude analogy to emphasise the difference. In fact in practice it can be much more subtle and hard to distinguish what effect each thing has - I was careful not to say quality is only affected by zodiacal placement though all the same. Different things may alter the expression or quality of a planet, such as sect, but I still think Jupiter, even when out of sect, still has a basic benefic essence, even if that can produce effects we don't always like. So even though I'm aware older authors can say benefics out of sect are malefic I really think they remain benefic but produce effects we don't desire, or show some destabilised from the norm kind of quality.

That said, I still think the positio of a planet in a sign is a chief indicator of measuring the quality in its ability to produce a dignified effect. So the essential dignities being a measure of that are a chief way we examine it. But it's not to say other things don't affect the quality of a planet's effect/signification.
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing" - Socrates

https://heavenlysphere.com/

14
hey mark,

those are useful ideas to consider about the use of all these terms.. i agree that sect, if considered changes one's interpretation of the chart.. just how one weighs that into account is not something that is straight forward to know how to do.. we are still learning as consideration of sect, while an old idea, is an idea that has only recently been reintroduced..

i like what you had to say about solar phase as well with the examples you gave. how does one factor in these considerations? more art, then science is how i see it all being integrated..

another 'aspect' to the ability of a planet to act a particular way is in fact aspect relationships between other planets.. i see this having the potential to modify the way a planet can act and how it acts, in a significant way.. saturn in square to uranus is very different then saturn in trine to uranus, while not being addressed via the topic of essential or accidental dignities either..
Mark wrote: I dont see why solar phase is any more 'accidental' than essential dignity. Some planets spend longer in a solar phase to the sun than they do in a sign.
Mark

15
Paul wrote:
I actually agree with you on that Mark - I think what distinguishes essential dignity from accidental fortitude may be difficult to always ascertain.
Yes I think we are in basic agreement on that point.

Paul wrote:
I remember you had a topic on whether sect was qualitative or quantitative before which overlaps with some of these concepts.
Actually that thread discussed whether essential dignity was qualitative or quantitative not sect. There seemed to be a consensus it was.
I think can have some of its quality altered by accidental position but really my post was more against the notion of lumping everything together like it's all the same. I wanted to make a crude analogy to emphasise the difference. In fact in practice it can be much more subtle and hard to distinguish what effect each thing has - I was careful not to say quality is only affected by zodiacal placement though all the same. Different things may alter the expression or quality of a planet such as sect.
Again, I think we are largely in agreement. I was trying to challenge what I think is often an over black and white approach to describing these ideas.

Paul wrote:
I still think Jupiter, even when out of sect, still has a basic benefic essence, even if that can produce effects we don't always like. So even though I'm aware older authors can say benefics out of sect are malefic I really think they remain benefic but produce effects we don't desire, or show some destabilised from the norm kind of quality.
I am not sure an out of sect Jupiter is seen as ''malefic'' so much as less able to work harmoniously for the nativity. Isn't that rather similar to the way traditional sources describe benefic planets like Jupiter in detriment or fall?

Paul wrote:
That said, I still think the positio of a planet in a sign is a chief indicator of measuring the quality in its ability to produce a dignified effect. So the essential dignities being a measure of that are a chief way we examine it. But it's not to say other things don't affect the quality of a planet's effect/signification.
Well that is certainly more flexible than some who give next to no room for qualitative factors outside essential dignity. I do think Brennan has raised an interesting question on sect. I would extend it further to include solar phase.

To some extent this may be a contrast in approach between those influenced primarily by hellenistic vs medieval/renaissance sources.

I dont want to appear too rigid. I just think the issues are often more grey in practical delineation. How many horary delineations on Skyscript have you seen where a planet lacking in dignity is described as 'weak'? That is surely a qualitative judgement? I have lost count of examples i have seen. But equally, I can see an argument that solar phase can sometimes be about power to act too. planets ''under the beams'' or combust are described in some sources as frail and ageing and correspondingly very weak. And while houses seems primarily quantitative they can have a qualitative influence too. For example a benefic like Jupiter becoming an 'accidental malefic' ruling the 12th house. Aspects seem to partake of both factors. We see a mingling of planetary orbs/influences. But also through dignity rulers and reception planets can gain power through better placed rulers.

Mark
As thou conversest with the heavens, so instruct and inform thy minde according to the image of Divinity William Lilly

16
francescomanfredi wrote:To speak more theoretical discussions, Charles Carter declared that the true domicile rulerships of planets contain a so emphatic focus, that it easily gets excesses (especially with dissonances). In one of his article, he declares that Jupiter-Pisces is 'too much Jupiter', and you just not get one self-indulgent position, but someone who 'wallows in splendid living'.

And in terms of 'goodness' of quality, he prefers most of all, the exaltations (which are said to be more modest than rulerships, but of a temperate and desiderable quality). The example he makes here, is that of Saturn in Libra, which strict retributive justice is mould with mercy (at least by sign placement).
hi Francesco. it looks like there has already been great discussion points offered by both Mark and Paul, so I will keep my comments brief and related to this quote because it doesn't appear (from my quick scan of responses) that anyone has taken up Carter's quote here.

in short, I'm not sure I agree with it, at least not in the simplistic model that Carter laid out. going to explain this by first sharing my understanding of essential dignity.
francescomanfredi wrote:I open a topic to speak about the essential-accidental dignities.
from the start, there is a technical issue here with how this thread has been set up. there is no such thing as "accidental dignities." we have essential dignities, which relate to a planet's zodiacal position, and accidental fortitudes which speak to how well-positioned a planet is in the horoscope to act on its significations.

I want to first explain why this distinction is critical. the word "essential" comes from the root in Latin esse, meaning "to be." when we engage on conversations about what is essential, we're talking about the inherent nature of something, in this case the quality of planetary expression (and I don't mean good vs. bad quality).

"dignity" itself comes from the Latin dignus, meaning "worthy." this is why we say planets in their own homes have dignity. using an analogy of planets as kings/queens, they are worthy of their own thrones. there is a fundamental alignment with who a planet is essentially and its mode of operation. more on this in a moment.

coming back to dignus, you cannot be accidentally worthy of something -- you either are or you aren't. this analogy of worthiness won't serve you much further than this (and as far as analogies go I don't love it, but it works for now), but the purpose of accidental fortitude is to measure how well-positioned a planet is to act, regardless of its quality of expression, intent, significations, etc.

it might help to give an example that contrasts these two measurements of strength -- one inherent and internal (essential), one external (accidental).

Mars in Capricorn in the 6th house. Mars is strong by essential dignity here, but weak in accidental fortitude. this might denote someone who is industrious, well-grounded and driven, able to accomplish a task at a high level of efficiency.. but Mars is in a poor placement to demonstrate that. it could be that the person has fallen ill (natural 6th house symbolism), or in questions of a 7th house nature, this placement could indicate that the person signified by the 7th house doesn't even realize that this Mars in Capricorn person exists (the 6th is 12th from the 7th)! so really, what we're seeing here is someone who is highly effective (internally strong, efficient, in control of his own affairs), but poorly placed to act.

conversely, imagine Mars in Libra on the 10th house cusp. this signifies somebody who struggles to express their frustration, builds up tension, doesn't successfully manage their own impulses, lashes out, clearly not in control of their own aggression. if this person was seeking a job, it might signify that they lack the competencies or skill required to complete the job to a satisfactory level (using Mars symbology, we might suggest that the incompetence is tied to an inability to "pull the trigger" at the right time and to the right extent). but, being in the 10th house, it just so happens that this Mars is in the right place at the right time, meeting the right people and landing the job on those factors alone. ultimately, the Mars in Libra person will find that this job is well over their heads, and ideally we'd want to see a strong Saturn receiving this Mars by a helpful aspect to demonstrate someone older, wiser, and in a position of authority who will help this person to master the role (because Saturn is exalted in Libra).

one very helpful key principle with essential dignity is effectiveness. planets in their own domiciles don't expend an ounce more energy than required to get something done, because there is an intrinsic ("essential") strength here that they are able to call upon. it's someone skilled, someone who is a master in their own role, someone well qualified (remember dignity = worthiness) to speak on such-and-such matter. it's an internal strength, something that comes from within that can't be stripped away *unless* incapacitated by accidental factors (hard aspects, combustion, poor phase, bad house placement, etc.).

planets in dignity also indicate contentedness. Lilly described a planet in its own sign as someone who wants nothing of the goods of the world. sometimes we see dishonorable people signified by essentially dignified planets, and in those cases we find that the person signified by that planet feels they have nothing to answer for their crimes. it's important that we don't overlay our own sense of morality (good vs. bad, right vs. wrong) on planets who are essentially dignified, because as I said, the more reliable principle here is effectiveness.

planets who are accidentally fortified enjoy the benefits of being in the right place at the right time, regardless of their inherent ability to come through on what's under discussion. they are receiving an external measure of support (helpful aspects from helpful planets, growing phase or motion, focal/powerful house placement, etc.).

for this reason, I take contention with Carter's quote. a planet in its own sign doesn't show a doubling of that planet's expression, but rather a comfortability of it. Jupiter in Pisces is able to be Jupiter at his best, most effective level. when he expands (as Jupiter does), the shadow sides of this overreaching tend to be less common because even though expanding is in Jupiter's DNA, so to speak, a dignified Jupiter knows when to expand and when not to. he's skilled enough to anticipate what to expect from his movements. he doesn't put more energy into something than will be required, and gets the max return on his energy investment. when you're content, when you're comfortable, you don't move unless it suits you, unless you stand something to gain, etc.

the possible exception here (and exception is a strong word, perhaps we should say "something to consider") are planets in exaltation as this is a naturally exaggerative form of dignity. I tend to think of exaltation as more volatile than domicile rulership, not unlike kingship -- someone's home will always be their home, but kings come and go all the time, sometimes gloriously and sometimes in disgrace, despite how highly they were lifted up. (similarly we find in traditional texts that planets in fall have more capability of recovering than planets in detriment.)

so this exaggerative quality of exaltation is particularly problematic for the Sun and Jupiter, as these are naturally exaggerative planets. the Sun tends towards arrogance in exaltation, and Jupiter towards over-optimism and over-expanding (many different applications of that principle). Saturn is a naturally reserved planet, so in its exaltation it doesn't puff up as much as the Sun or Jupiter. you can do this exercise with the rest of the planets, based on their own essential principle.

so Carter says that Jupiter in Pisces is self-indulgent, wallowing in splendid living -- I'd say that's more Venus in Pisces, because Pisces exalts the Venusian principle of a focus on comforts, sensual goods, luxurious living, etc.

haven't really put this down before, but if I were to put a few keywords or ideas down for the dignities or debilities of the planets, and the differences between essential and accidental considerations, they would be...
- domicile: contentedness, comfortability, high effectiveness
- exaltation: lifting up, exalting of planetary principle
- fall: lowering down, abasing of planetary principle
- detriment: discontentedness, extreme discomfort, high ineffectiveness

- essential: intrinsic, inherent, internal, something you come with
- accidental: external, from outside, something you receive from conditional factors
http://wadecaves.com | hello@wadecaves.com

17
Hello community and happy new year

Something I haven't so far got right:
Between peregrine/exiled/fallen planets is mutual reception essential or accidental dignity (or even debility..)?

18
if signs are involved it is usually an essential dignity. Aspects and houses are accidental. Some traditionalists do not consider mutual reception a dignity at all.

19
Thank you for the reply, Tom.

So would that mean, that, if mutuallity is involved, a planet otherwise peregrine, is no longer so?

Or could it be something in between? Essential, as signs are involved, as you say, but also accidental, since the planet doesn't gain essential credit on its own but through the "accidental" presence of its dispositor.

20
So would that mean, that, if mutuallity is involved, a planet otherwise peregrine, is no longer so
Some might argue that's correct, but I don't think so. Let's say the Sun is in Pisces and Jupiter is in Leo. The Sun is still without essential dignity. Essential dignity is the result of sign placement and that doesn't change because the Sun is in mutual reception. It's still the Sun in Pisces, and the Sun in Pisces is peregrine.

Wonderful

21
I?m just writing to express my feelings on how awesome is this post. Reading all you wrote here have helped to clear my mind in a way that I never could by reading the classics.

Some of you maybe remember a thread of long ago of me where I asked whether a weak malefic is even more malefic. With the discussion we have here, it becomes much easier to answer that, and one of the thing I realized is that we use terms like "weak" or "strong" too broadly, and therefore we are not always agreeing on what this means. Factors I consider to decide if a planet is strong will be different than those from other astrologers.

Now I see how important it is to differentiate between essential and accidental, between word like dignity and, say, fortitude, and the complex relation between "strenght" (ess. or acc)-good,benefic/bad,malefic.

thank you all for this! may you all be blessed.
Yair Alon
Kabbalist