New Article: Definition of Peregrine 1 by Tom Deb wrote a new article on the definition of peregrine that can be found here: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/peregrine.html Highly recommended. However I have a quibble, and someone might have good documentation to refute me, and if so I'll welcome it. Peregrine means lack of essential dignity. On this we all agree (Noel Tyl students excepted). The question becomes: is a planet peregrine, if in addition to lacking essential dignity, it is also in detriment or fall? The older authorities seem to agree that it is, as several give examples of Saturn being peregrine in Aries, the sign of its fall. Then, however the waters get muddied a bit and Deb argues that the reason for the lack of clarity is Morin's Astrologia Gallica (published 1661). Morin had ideas on this point as he did every point, but he did not express himself very well, and he even tries to clarify what he wrote earlier, but perhaps only succeeded in making things worse. See the article for the full explanation. Here is my quibble. First, using Morin's system a planet is more likely to be peregrine than not. He eschewed the use of the terms and faces entirely. Therefore if a planet did not have dignity by domicile, exaltation or triplicity, he had to be peregrine. It makes sense, then, that he would take a slightly different view of peregrine planets than other authors. Secondly, he wrote this massive work over a period of 30 years. During that time a man's thinking is likely to change. It is doubtful he re-read every page before he added to the text. He never managed to get the book published in his lifetime. Thirdly ,and perhaps most important, although chronologically it seems to make sense to "blame" Morin for the confusion in the definition, it makes less sense once we realize no one read the damn book. To date I found one reference to a 17th century astrologer who read it and compared it to Lilly's Christian Astrology, but the man died before he ever did anything with whatever he learned.* I've never seen an 18th or 19th century astrologer ever refer to AG or Morin as an authority. The book was published by a grateful client 5 years after Morin's death. However, without its author to promote it and interest in astrology on the wane, it seems to have grown moldy with age until it was re-discovered in the early 20th century. Morin, for better or worse was simply not that influential. Now I'm arguing from an English speaking viewpoint. Perhaps AG was used in the non-English speaking world before 1900, but if I had to wager a little, I'd say it was minimal. He is probably more influential today than he was in the 17th century. If someone knows differently, please let us know. I want to know more about this man, his work and its influence, but the best stuff seems to be written in French only. My hunch is that we need to look elsewhere for the confusion. Tom *An Astrological Diary of the Seventeenth Century: Samuel Jeake of Rye 1652-1699, Clarendon Press.Oxford Jeake kept a diary of every incident and bodily function and malfunction that occurred to him - noting the time of day positions of the planets etc. He was evidently planning to write an astrology text based on his findings. The book gives an in-depth look at everyday life in 17th century England. Jeake read both CA and AG. Unfortunately he died before ever getting his planned text into print and it is difficult to find his ideas concerning the differences in the two works. Quote Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:06 am