Modern astrology gives importance to a singleton, a planet which is alone in a hemisphere of the natal chart. Here is what Michael Meyer says in A Handbook for the Humanistic Astrologer (1974): ?When only one planet is found within a hemisphere, regardless of planetary pattern a great deal of attention should be placed upon that planet?s functional principle and its hemisphere. The operative principle here is functional compensation, the isolated planet overwhelming and/or channeling, hopefully, power generated by the remaining planets.?

I haven?t come across much mention of singleton planets in traditional astrology. If they are as powerful as Meyer says then they would seem to be eligible for inclusion with the accidental dignities and the points allotted them for strength assessment purposes. It isn?t on Lilly?s point list of planet strength and debility. Did other authors give the single planet accidental dignity? If the old authors do mention the lone planet how do their ideas compare with the modern psychological perspective of Meyer? Do any of you who practice traditional astrology give them accidental dignity, along with points?

This is a good question. In traditional astrology unaspected planets are called "feral planets." In The Astrologer's Guide, Bonati says a feral planet is weak. The definition is a bit different than Meyers.

Noel Tyl makes a big deal of these planets. His definition is a planet that is not in major aspect to any planet, and of course certain orbs apply. Just to drive traditionalists to distraction he calls such planets "peregrine." He says they "make a lot of noise" to draw attention to themselves and therefore threaten to "run away with the chart." Therefore they are strong. Back to this in a moment.

Ibn Ezra says:

Feral is when a planet is in a sign and is not aspected by any other planet as long as it is there, and is not separating from any planet. This happens only to the Moon because of its swift motion.

Notice for a planet to qualify it must be unaspected for the entrie time it is in a sign. No "orbs" are mentioned; neither is a delineation.

Al Biruni says this:

When a planet is in a sign and no other planet has been in aspect with it from the time of its entry to the time of tis exit, it is said to be feral in its course. This is practically impossible with the superior planets and the Sun, and can rarely occur, but with the Moon it is necessarily the case and frequently occurs. If the Moon with its rapid motion did not exist, this might well happen to the inferior planets, one of them moving rapidly the other slowly. Some people say that when the Moon is feral, this is a substitute for conjunction with the planets in whose terms it happens to be within the sign, but this opinion is trivial and quite unsupported."

Al Biruni seems to agree with Ibn Ezra, and does not stress the importance of an unaspected planet. I think what we're seeing here is the difference in modern and traditional attitude towards aspects.

If we believe that aspects are one of the most important parts of delineation, then an unaspected planet takes on a particular significance. Let's look at a simple example of the approaches towards aspects: Mars square Jupiter from The Astrologer's Handbook by Sakoian and Acker - 1989 edition

This can be one of the most destructive aspects because the natives are likely to use collective power and even social sanction for self aggrandizement and gratification of the passions. ...

The natives also are inclined to fanatical religious and social beliefs ...

What the authors have done is combine the influence of the planets (Mars = self) and Jupiter = society and religion) and looked at the down side of such a combination because they are discussing a square, a hard aspect. The aspect becomes a signature of sorts. It makes no difference to Mars or Jupiter how this aspect is read (i.e. Mars square Jupiter or Jupiter square Mars). I'm sure placement and other things are taken into consideration. I'm trying to keep this simple.

A traditionalist might look at what Mars means in the chart, let's say anger, and note that in aspect with Jupiter there will be a lot of anger. Jupiter qualifies Mars. It is different in reverse. If Jupiter rules the spouse, then square to Mars means we have an angry spouse (or maybe a large angry spouse). They qualify each other, they do not combine.

Back to feral. a lack of aspect becomes significant when we combine aspected planets to determine their significance in the chart. Mars by itself is what? When unaspected there is nothing to check it or help define it in the chart. The traditionalist might take note of the situation, but since aspects are not of primary importance (Planetary strength is) and tend not to indicate particular signatures, it wouldn't be such a big deal.

Tyl looks at the feral planet as unattached. The implication is that the planet somehow needs an anchor or else it goes nuts. This reflects the modern view of the extreme importance of aspects, or maybe Noel thinks of aspecting planets as horoscopic sedatives.

I'm not familiar with Meyers, but I do note the word "compensation" was used in his explanation. Without an aspect the planet is "missing something" and needs support since it has no aspect to provide that support. I found the quote a bit confusing, but it may have been more clear in a larger context. ["The operative principle here is functional compensation, the isolated planet overwhelming and/or channeling, hopefully, power generated by the remaining planets.? ] (?)

In short, the reason you might not find much on this topic in traditional texts is due to rarity of the phenomenon, particularly in light of the traditional definition, and less importance being placed on aspects.

I wonder if anyone else found anything.

Tom

Tom,

I may have been unclear in my question. By ?singleton? is normally meant a planet which is alone in a hemisphere of the chart. North or south, east or west. A singleton can still be aspected, it?s just the only planet in that section of the chart. For example, I have mentioned that in my chart Mars is involved in a tight grand trine. With Mars being the only planet located in the bottom half of the chart, I have wondered if Mars gains strength through accidental dignity and therefore could gain in dominance within the grand trine and the chart in general. However, with Mars in Pisces there is little chance of him (or me) being a scrapping he-man.

But not to worry! -We got another interesting post from you. You mentioned Noel Tyl and his ?peregrine? planets. I often visit his site and forum and always get worked-up over the gall of his taking a perfectly valid and meaningful traditional term and giving it a new meaning.

Thanks,
Kirk

Hi Tom,

Your answer certainly wasn't a waste though. I appreciated the information. I have come across the term a few times but haven't see such an erudite explanation. So thanks.


Kirk, I haven't seen this in traditional texts either but I come across the term singleton in modern texts quite a bit. Richard Idemon was a big fan of it. Tracey Marks is another. I feel that it is a little simplistic. There is no taking into account the condition of the planet itself or what it aspects etc. To make a big deal of something in isolation like that seems to defeat the purpose of the chart being an integrated whole.

Cheers
Sue

Hello Sue,

I agree that one factor in isolation shouldn?t be overly stressed, but if a planet in the 2nd or 5th house gets 3 points toward accidental dignity it doesn?t seem far-fetched that a planet could pick up a few points toward dignity if it is alone in occupying one half of the chart. This would be one more consideration; essential dignity and aspects would be factored in.

Since you and Tom aren?t aware of ancient thought on this matter it appears that the ancients didn?t consider it to be of importance. In light of the importance given to sect, and the nocturnal and diurnal division of the chart, it seems odd that a planet which is alone in the top or bottom half of the chart didn?t get much notice from the ancients. Likewise, with the diurnal movement of rising, culmination, and setting the eastern and western hemispheres have their meanings. It seems natural to think that a lone player in either of those hemispheres would have received the attention of the ancients. They would see such prominent planetary positions just as clearly as we do. It would be interesting and helpful to know why they ignored them?what in their thinking would have caused the ancients to move on to other considerations.

Maybe the moderns are on to something?

You mentioned Noel Tyl and his ?peregrine? planets. I often visit his site and forum and always get worked-up over the gall of his taking a perfectly valid and meaningful traditional term and giving it a new meaning.

This made me laugh because I just happened to venture into this site today and saw a discussion about unaspected planets and couldn't quite work out why they were calling them peregrine.

I agree that one factor in isolation shouldn?t be overly stressed, but if a planet in the 2nd or 5th house gets 3 points toward accidental dignity it doesn?t seem far-fetched that a planet could pick up a few points toward dignity if it is alone in occupying one half of the chart.

I take your point. But accidental dignity is given based on the strength of the house it occupies. Fifth house is stronger than the twelfth, for example. However, I am not aware of any strength given to a particular hemisphere. Of course, you could be right and there may have been an awareness and consideration of this, I just haven't seen it.

Maybe the moderns are on to something?

Surely not!!

This made me laugh because I just happened to venture into this site today and saw a discussion about unaspected planets and couldn't quite work out why they were calling them peregrine.

He says he's "pushing the envelope." I never really understood what he meant by that. He could call it "feral" like everyoe else, and slightly alter the definition. Lee Lehman called changing the meaning of the word a "hijacking." I like that better.

Notice, too how in his world the "peregrine" planet is strong, while in the real world it is weak. I think he likes the way it sounds, as he instructs his students to pronounce the word "quindecile" as kwin day CHELL' le (long "e" on the end)

A quindecile is a 165 degree aspect. It 's supposed to mean "obsession."

Tom

I came across your post as I was reading about "feral" planets. Morinus uses the term in Book 21, Chapter XII, point 5) where he defines "feral" as unaspected. According to Morin, a feral planet does not conjoin or receive an aspect from any other planet in the chart. Thus it's influence shows a greater purity in terms of its essential nature and it indicates something unusual for good or for ill, depending on the nature of the planet.

I hadn't read this in a long time so I checked out Tony's citation. Morin never disappoints. There is a slightly different definition of feral out there somewhere and I don't recall what it is, this one is fine and the observation that the planet will do something unusual is intriguing. But what are we to make of this quote:

If a strong planet has no aspect with another planet it is said to be feral and will act simply in accordance with its own nature, especially if located in its domicile. Every feral planet indicates something unusual-good or ill-depending on the nature of the planet; for example, Saturn feral in the first indicates the hermit or monk. But if it aspects another planet ...

??????? I thought feral means no aspects! He is probably referring to the condition of the feral planet. Perhaps this is a typesetter's error. Perhaps the great astrologer was tired when he wrote it. After all it was published years after his death and editors were unknown in the 17th century.

Still the idea that the feral planet is associated with something unusual is intriguing and the stronger the planet the more unusual its manifestation makes sense.

I think the key to this typically long sentence of Morin's is the antecedent, "a strong planet." He's saying that if a strong planet is unaspected, it is feral; but if a strong planet aspects another planet, it is not feral. In other words, the term "feral" here refers to one condition open to the antecedent (a strong planet); so the reference in the second sentence of the paragraph is not to a feral planet in aspect, but to a strong planet that either does, or does not, make an aspect.