I?ve always treated the point scoring system as an art, and as a means to understand a chart, not an end in itself. Lilly?s point scoring system is unfair and imperfect, as any point scoring system will be. I think the real value to it is that as we go through the list of what to look at, it may direct us to something that we miss. For example, I know when I go through the list, I often forget to look at the fixed stars unless I am reminded to by the checklist.

My biggest problem with the point scoring system is that it automatically seems to give points for mutual reception, even if the affected planets are in their detriments. Take for example, Mars in Taurus and Venus in Scorpio, as they were a while ago. My SolarFire kept telling me how great this was and gave them both a big ol? plus five points for being in mutual reception. I?d only give points away for mutual reception if the planets are in their own dignities as well, or at least not in their own detriments or falls, for example Venus in Aquarius and Saturn in Taurus. It?s not there is no interaction of influences between Mars in Taurus and Venus in Scorpio, it?s just that it?s a bad interaction. I think that is Tom?s famous ?two drunks helping each other home? situation.

My other problem with the point scoring is that it treats the Sun differently, The Sun can?t get points for being Not Combust can it? It doesn?t make sense. So when you come up with a final number, just remember that it isn?t science, it?s an art.

To Deb:-

Thank you for the reply. A question though. Is there any logic for the division of essential and accidental dignities? I mean, is there any clear traditional definition of what is essential and what is accidental?

My own understanding:-
1) Planetary position in zodiacal location = essential. 5 essential dignities and 2 essential debilities (3 if you count peregrine).

2) Anything else = accidental
a) Positions in houses:
i) Mode: angular, succedent, cadent.
ii) Planet in its own joy
b) Proximity with sun
i) Cazimi, combust, under sun's beam
c) Relative position with sun
i) Diurnal/nocturnal planets in diurrnal/nocturnal charts
ii) Planets in or out of sect. Planets in Hayz.
iii) Oriental/occidental
d) Apparent motion
i) Direct, stationary, retrograde
e) Apparent speed
ii) Swift, slow
f) Aspects with benefics/malefics, besiegement
g) Types of aspects: Ptolemaic aspects only!
h) Nature of aspects: dextrous, sinister, applying, separating
waxing, waning, in reception or not in reception
in proper face (Almugea), etc.
i) Altitudinal position, elevated/low in chart.
j) Latitudinal positions of planets: Northern latitude + increasing,
southern latitude + decreasing, etc.
k) Increasing and decreasing in numbers (with reference to the
epicycle).
j) Configuration with fixed stars, conjunction with benefic/malefic
stars, paran relationship with benefic/malefic stars, via combusta?
k) Solar critical degrees (within a degree of cusp of zodiacal signs),
lunar critical degrees (within a degree of cusp of lunar mansions).
l) Planetary hour (Bonatti and Lilly would have considered this in
determining radicality of horary chart).

I think that the difference between essential and accidental dignity is that essential dignity relates to the nature of how a planet expresses itself. Look at Lilly where he has two descriptions for a planet based on whether it?s weak or strong. He refers to this as ?Manners When Well Placed? and ?Manners, When Ill Placed Or Dignified.?

Accidental dignity seems to just relate to how strongly a planet shows itself in a chart.

I know that?s simple, but I think that?s it.

Dear Mark,

I also think we maybe need to take a further virgoan step and say "essentially strong[er]" and "accidentally strong[er]" to clearify the term "strong".

Obvious reason behind this is that 'strong' is ambiguous as it is applicable to both essential strength and accidental strength of a planet.

Otherwise things often get complicated (for me at least). Because when an astrologer simply(?) say that 'a planet is strong' I stop and ask myself whether s/he means :

a) that that planet is essentially strong, or
b) that it is accidentally strong, or
c) that it is strong in both terms

Aha! I suggest to use "really strong", or STRONG for the last one (see my previous post), where a planet is strong both essentially and accidentally