You know that there is a system (or more) to rate dignities and debilities of planets. This system helps to understand that not every dignity or debility should be weighted in the same way and amount. Regarding essential dignities and debilities it looks like this:

domicile +5 points
exaltation +4 points
triplicity +3 points
term +2 points
face +1 point
fall -4 points
exile -5 points

And there are peregrine planets.
William Lilly writes this who have no essential dignities not even face are called peregrine. He rates them of -5 points, the same as planets in exile.

I red the description of peregrine planets like homeless people, neither good nor bad but with a tendency to bad. So I would expect to rate them as -1/2 (and not -5). Especially not as double weakened like a planet without dignity in exile.

Poor Mercury had to go to Pisces just now and is rated -14 points!

Hi Georgius,

I don't think we need to assign -5 points for peregrine. We can check reception between the planets and its rulers to understand if it has support.

I give peregrine 0 points.

Satya

Are you Landmann?

Fidibus wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2025 4:43 am Are you Landnann?

Yes.

satya7 wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2025 9:00 pm I give peregrine 0 points.

Sounds reasonable to me.

But I want to understand what for instance William Lilly thought when he gave -5 points. He must be aware of Mercury in Pisces with -14 points! (With the exception from 16 to 19 degrees where it‘s in his own egyptian term and because of this has only -7 points.)

Georgius wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2025 7:03 am But I want to understand what for instance William Lilly thought when he gave -5 points. He must be aware of Mercury in Pisces with -14 points! (With the exception from 16 to 19 degrees where it‘s in his own egyptian term and because of this has only -7 points.)

I think Lilly’s reasoning for giving a peregrine planet such low points likely stems from the idea that a planet without any essential dignity is in a precarious, unstable state. A planet with dignity has strength, purpose, and a clear sense of direction. A peregrine planet, on the other hand, lacks any of those stabilizing factors.

The severity of -5 points suggests that Lilly saw peregrine planets as highly vulnerable to external influences. Without any essential dignity to anchor them, they are more susceptible to affliction, manipulation, or waywardness. In a way, this aligns with the medieval and Renaissance astrological worldview, where dignity was not just about ability but also about moral strength. A peregrine planet could easily be led astray, much like an unmoored person in an unpredictable world.

However, whether this rating is too harsh is a good question. While a peregrine planet lacks intrinsic strength, its condition is also shaped by accidental dignity (house placement, aspects, speed, etc.). A peregrine planet that is angular and well-aspected could still function quite well, even if it lacks essential dignity.

I suspect Lilly was emphasizing the idea that a peregrine planet is at the mercy of circumstances, making it unreliable or even dangerous. But in practical chart interpretation, the level of weakness varies—sometimes a peregrine planet is just neutral or indifferent rather than actively harmful.

Just a possible explanation, not necessarily the right one.

Thank you for this description! It arises another connected question.

AJ wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2025 7:37 am While a peregrine planet lacks intrinsic strength, its condition is also shaped by accidental dignity (house placement, aspects, speed, etc.). A peregrine planet that is angular and well-aspected could still function quite well, even if it lacks essential dignity.

I red somewhere that there are qualitative differences between essential and accidental dignities. Essential dignity shows whether a planet shows its good sides or its bad ones (when essentially debilitated). Accidental dignities or debilities show if the planet is able to act or not. I see that this difference often is not followed.

https://www.astronor.com/dignities.htm

I prefer the word 'different' rather than good or bad for a lack of essential dignity.
I remember reading an article showing up how stand-up comedians have ofentimes debilitated planets (showing us the funny side of being at the wrong place at the wrong time).
https://www.astro.com/astrology/opa_article220420_e.htm
Think of the travel expansion in the world were people find themselves in different cultures without any protection by rules of law other than being a human being. It has a Neptunian quality.

Ouranos wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2025 11:50 am https://www.astronor.com/dignities.htm

A colorful description of essential dignities. Thank you!

Ouranos wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2025 11:50 am I prefer the word 'different' rather than good or bad for a lack of essential dignity.

Well, I don‘t mind a distinct speech. That‘s why I like traditional and disdain psychological astrology.

Georgius wrote: Sat Feb 15, 2025 10:52 am I red somewhere that there are qualitative differences between essential and accidental dignities. Essential dignity shows whether a planet shows its good sides or its bad ones (when essentially debilitated). Accidental dignities or debilities show if the planet is able to act or not. I see that this difference often is not followed.

I think you’re absolutely right—there is a key distinction between essential and accidental dignity that often gets blurred in modern discussions. Essential dignity is about what a planet has to offer—whether it’s operating in a way that aligns with its nature (good sides) or is compromised (bad sides). Accidental dignity, on the other hand, is about how much power the planet has to act, regardless of whether that action is beneficial or harmful.

For years now I give -3 for peregrine planets,
it puts them just below fall which get -4
and below detriment which gets -5.

I believe that Charles Obert does the same thing.

I usually don't give a double negative (say a -5 for detri and a -3 for pereg).