I've been operating under the assumption that a planet that has some sort of an essential dignity or an essential debility is not peregrine. But I've also read that a planet can be peregrine with an essential debility. Are both of these practices in use, or have I just misunderstood this?

Elfpower wrote:I've been operating under the assumption that a planet that has some sort of an essential dignity or an essential debility is not peregrine.

This is, I think, the mainstream-opinion.

Elfpower wrote:But I've also read that a planet can be peregrine with an essential debility.

That an essentially debilitated planet is peregrine at the same time, is the opinion of Lilly.

You should know, that Firmicus Maternus, for example, didn't mention detriment at all, only the fall. Obviously that debility was added later.

My evalutation at this point is that:

Peregrine is the absence of essencial dignity. Peregrine does not seem to be affected by being in exile or fall, in the same way that it is not affected by being retrograde. Different concepts in my opinion.

In horaries, which are the easiest way to see astrological phenomena, the peregrination seem like an strong accidental debility. Peregrines planets usually don?t have the power to act.

It should be noted that I don?t use the renaissance criteria of peregrine, because I use egyptian terms and all three triplicity rulers, so my criteria of peregrine is more restricted than the one by Lilly.

Bonatti described a peregrine planet like a man with no allies or home.

By the way is "Elfpower" named after the band? If so, good taste!

I've always heard it the way Deb has - a planet is peregrine if it has no essential dignity.

Forms of essential debility on the other hand, don't keep a planet from being peregrine. And a planet can be debilitated in more than one way. So it can certainly be in fall or other detriment and peregrine at the same time.

Just like a planet can be essentially dignified by being exhaltation, cazimi, and mutual reception at the same time - they don't cancel each other out.

Possibly we need different vocabulary here, but if you get right down to it, peregrine is simply one more element on the minus side. You'd need something on the plus side to get rid of it. Minuses would just create more debility - e.g., in fall, combust, and peregrine. A planet can be all of those at the same time.

Hi Deb,
many thanks for your comment and question. Is it not the general definition of peregrinity, that this is given, if neither dignity nor debility is to be found? Or is this only the opinion of Morin, when he says (for xample: Astrologia Gallica, Liber XXI., Sectio II. Caput II, p. 510) that a peregrine planet is of mediocriter affectus (mean condition)?

If peregrinity is neutral with a tendency to 'bad', as Bonatti teaches, a planet in bad condition cannot be in mean condition at the same time. The sense of 'bad' is not identical with 'mean' or 'neutral' because it is another quality.

You are right, in traditional astrology the definition of peregrine: - a planet placed out of all his dignities (Dariot) - does not include a reference to the debilities. But I think, this is because 'dignities-peregrine-debilities' are obviously thought as a triad: 'good-middle-bad'.

But how do you define peregrine?

And is there - before Lilly - any author, who really claims emphatically that peregrine is to be added to debility?

In any case - Lilly, if my understanding of his CA is correct, adds peregrine and detriment or peregrine and fall. But he doesn't explain that. And thus an essential debelity lessens the strength of a planet twice as much (to minus in scoring, 10 or 9) as a dignity strengthen it (to plus, 5 or 4). But why is 'bad' of double strength compared to 'good'? I can't find an answer in his writings to this. Do you?

Many thanks
Jonny

I do not see peregrine as neutral, I see it as void of essential power to act in your favor, whatever is it you want it to do or that it should do, it will not (not the opposite, at least, that's detrimental or fall I'd say). If its cadent and is not your light in sect, then that will not be thaaat bad. Try an angular peregrine planet with hard aspects and you will see where hell begins.

To tell the truth, neutrality is almost impossible in astrology in my opinion, but if I could use an example it would be a void of course mild essentially dignified planet (in it's own trip for example) so that it can not act through an aspect and does not have so much power to favor "you" and/or settle the matter for the "other one".

If you use Dorotheus trip. rulers, faces and egyptian or ptolemaic terms, seldom will you get a peregrine planet... so a planet in Exalt. and/or Dom. will generally get a + 9 score as much as Det. or Fall may well get a - 9, and that's where Trip. participation is most evident and important, as the element the planet is in has relation to the power it can exert.

Now, I know how bad a peregrine planet can be first hand. My Saturn is ex conditia in Scorpio, 7th house. I absolutely hate it with all the forces of the cosmos, even though my Sun in Libra, 6th house, is in a worse state. But the Sun tends to keep quiet, Saturn just do not get out of the way, never, ever, forever. And it's "only" peregrine.

If anyone wants to take a look at my chart, to see if the example really fits, it's: 25-09-1983, 19:07, Belo Horizonte-Brasil.

Hi Jonny

Thank you for the Morinus reference. As you probably know, the term itself means ?foreigner? or ?outsider?, and the definition that I have seen across many traditional works is that, in relation to essential dignity, it simply describes a planet which has no essential dignity. Yuzuru and Olivia have described it just as I would, to show that a planet can be peregrine and in detriment. (I say ?in relation to essential dignity? because that is what we are talking about here, although sometimes the word peregrine and its meaning of foreigner or ?unrelated? is used in traditional texts to describe a planet that has no aspectual connections or essential dignity connections to a particular place).

I?m not sure how far back the term goes, but it seems to be quite a firmly established principle of horary and is defined in such a way to mean ?out of essential dignity? several times in Ben Dykes' translation of The Works of Sahl and Masha?allah. On p.420 there is an example horary from Masha?allah which mentions Saturn being peregrine and in Leo, it?s sign of detriment, proving that the condition is not intended to mean a planet that is neither in dignity nor debility.

With regard to the quote from Morin, I have the Richard Baldwin translation of that passage and in the context of what he is talking about, the ?intermediate state? seems to be the equalising affect of a peregrine significator being in a difficult aspect to a benefic planet, or a favourable aspect of a difficult planet.

I also don?t get any sense from Bonatti?s text of peregrine suggesting a state of neutral with a tendency to 'bad'. Far from it. To be peregrine is a state of weakness, and in horary (which is where I tend to use the term) this state of being ?disconnected? from the territory makes peregrine planets the suspected culprits for all manner of shady behaviour. This definitely comes across in Bonatti?s text, I think, especially in his references to peregrine planets in angles being taken as the significator for a thief.

I say a little more about the use of peregrine planets in horary in the top paragraph of this page - http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig4.html

I should add that my experience of the effect of peregrine planets is mainly confined to horary, so it is interesting for me to get other people's views of how it plays out in natal charts.

With regards
Deb

Deb wrote:[...] in Ben Dykes' translation of The Works of Sahl and Masha?allah. On p.420 there is an example horary from Masha?allah which mentions Saturn being peregrine and in Leo, it?s sign of detriment, proving that the condition is not intended to mean a planet that is neither in dignity nor debility.

But did Masha'allah really recognize detriment as a debility? As I recall, the earliest Arabic authors did not (and neither did the Hellenistic or Indian authors).

Hi Deb,

many thanks for the Masha?allah-quotation. But is he really using the term 'peregrine'? I don't want to insist, really, but it sounds so strangely in his time. In any case: You gave me the quotation that I didn't believe to exist! If you don't mind, may you please give the quotation of the book and chapter? Perhaps we can find it in the latin texts on your phantastic website?!

By the way - is there a noun in English for peregrine?

Reading your article (thanks for the link) gives a new sight to me. But I hesitate to follow your definition. To my recollection the definitions of peregrine in tradition never relate to the debilities. And - I did mention it above- there is a certain imbalance in scoring the fortitudes. Counting with you(?) and Lilly, a planet in its own detriment or fall can, if he is also peregrine, be twice as 'bad' as a planet in his dignities can ever be 'good'. The equivalent to 'peregrine' is missing here because there is no scoring for a planet beeing 'not peregrine'. Thus the scoring system lays open an imbalance given as consequence by a potentially questionable[???] definition and understanding of peregrine.

As to the quotation of Morin there is possibly a mistake in the german translation. I'm trying to verify that.

Kind regards
Jonny

Hi Martin

It?s interesting that when Al Biruni defines ?detriment? (442) he explains that the Hindu?s have no knowledge of the term. The use of ?detriment? as a debility is probably a research project in itself, (I ought to check but unfortunately I don?t have time to do that at the moment as I am packing for a flight). My belief is that the ?7th-sign? placement became a debility from the start, because ancient astrology is full of allusions to planets in their own signs being in places of strength and familiarity, which brings an obvious comparison to being weak or alien in the opposite places. One problem is that we can?t make a straight-forward search for the word ?detriment? because even in the Medieval and Renaissance periods the debilities were known under variant names. For example, the English text of Dariot uses the words ?decayed? or ?abased? or the term ?contrary to their own houses?, but makes clear that this is an impediment. Another example - the text of Olger Ferrier (died 1588) refers to ?detriments and falls? as ?hurts and falls?, and John Searle (1609) calls them ?banishments and abasements?. I think we can get a sense of this in ancient charts even if the direct references are hard to find. For example, in Greek Horoscopes, (p.141) a nativity of a prince who died in infancy is published along with a short interpretation which clearly refers to three of the planets opposing their own houses (ie., ?in detriment?) as reason for the early death. The text points to the fact that the Moon is in Capricorn, Venus is in Aries and Jupiter is in Virgo and uses the phrase ?opposes themselves?, which seems very similar to Dariot?s reference to being ?contrary to their own houses?, where the debility is more explicitly explained because he is teaching the concept in an introductory text, (the Greek text appears to assume the principle is understood).