Good morning Deb,

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?

That's very interesting, and I think you have a point: planets' positions relative to their own houses (signs) is definitely an ancient consideration. But I still doubt that, to Masha'allah, it would count as a debility in the same way that fall did.

Hi Martin

I also agree that your point is valid, and until this is clarified it makes that earlier reference from Masha'allah of dubious value. (This is one of the reasons why this forum has been so useful to me, because it keeps me aware of principles that I take for granted, but which actually need checking out).

Hi Jonny - have just noticed your post. I'll go get the full reference anyway and add it into the thread. (I should have done that originally but I was rushing when I posted).

Hi Jonny,

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?!

The translation I gave (from Dykes, p.420) was from the text entitled ?On the Interpretation of Cognition?. The Latin title is De cogitatione and the passage in question can be found at the top of p.94 of the Warburg digital reproduction of the text, at http://warburg.sas.ac.uk/mnemosyne/Orie ... htm#mescog
(thank you Warburg !).
David Juste explains that the original Arabic text is lost, and the Latin translator is unknown. There are several copies of this text dating to the 12th century, so we can be confident of the terminology for around that time, but maybe we have to be cautious about assumptions of its use in earlier centuries? (Something else for us to look out for?)

[ascendant is in 10? Taurus, and Venus, her lady, Cancer]? 15? in the house of the Moon, & the Moon is similarly in the house of Venus, at 10?, and the Moon was peregrine, because she was not in her own house, nor in exaltation, nor in triplicity,* but she was joining Venus from the quadrate aspect and there was reception. Also, the lord of the Part of Fortune was Saturn which was in Leo, peregrine, not received.

* The dignities of term and face are not included here, but there are other definitions of peregrine given in the collection of works translated by Dykes, where they are mentioned. However I accept Martin?s point that since he doesn?t mention the debility of detriment in this tract, we cannot assume that it would have been recognised. So ultimately this is a poor example against your argument. However, (as Papretis pointed out in another post) this passage is interesting as an example where participating triplicity rulers were not allocated a status of dignity to prevent them being considered peregrine.

I will try to find a better example of a planet defined as peregrine whilst debilitated. But this won?t be easy because although I can find many examples from around or after the time of Lilly, of the few chart examples that we have in earlier texts, only a small percentage have been translated into English. I also need to find a reference that specifically mentions peregrine and either detriment or fall together, in an unequivocal manner regardless of the language/terminology used! (So I am thinking that this might take me some time ...)

On the other hand, of all the references to and definitions of peregrine that I have seen, every one describes a planet that does not have *dignity*. There is a not a single instance where it is said to describe a planet that is out of both dignity *and debility* - so if you can find a pre-Lilly reference that does do that I will be equally impressed. As things stand I would be confident in saying that in modern understanding at least, the situation I have described is mainstream, (and without doubt has been mainstream in texts from the 17th century onwards) - but I am still interested in clarifying the historial position, as you are.

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

In English we have ?peregrine? as an adjective (as it is in astrology) or ?to peregrinate? as a verb. I don?t think we have it as a noun.

- 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.

It?s the opposite situation, because both dignities and debilities stack up remember. The worst case scenario is for Mercury in Pisces which can be peregrine and in detriment and in fall; but in Virgo it can be in its own sign and in exaltation and in its own term or face as well. For the other planets the worst essential debility score they can possibly get is ? 10, but Venus can get + 10 in early Taurus in a diurnal chart, where she is in sign, triplicity and term; so can Saturn in early degrees of Aquarius, and Jupiter in early degrees of Sagittarius in a nocturnal chart; and Mars in early Scorpio can get +11 for being in sign (+5), triplicity (+3), term (+2) and face (+1). In fact, overall, it is easier for the planets to get extreme points in dignity than it is for them to get extreme points of debility. Hence the approach as I understand it does allow the dignity table to be fairly balanced, whereas if we adopt your view that a planet can only be peregrine *or* debilitated then we really would see a significant imbalance. Not that I wish to vigorously defend the dignity point?scoring tables, because of course, they are all laden with some peculiarities and flaws.

Hopefully I will find a better example given time, in which case I will come back and update this thread.

Regards
Deb

Hi Deb,

thanks for these lots of material to study!

In the meantime I tried to verify your reference to Dariot. Result: We must dig a little deeper in times as to the use of the terms 'detriment' and 'fall'.

In Claude Dariot, L'INTRODVCTION AV JVGEMENT DES ASTRES, Lyon 1558

I find page 15:
. . . planette estant au signe opposite ? sa maison, est dite estre en son detriment.

and page 16:
. . . quand elles se rencontrent en leur cheutes [les chutes - the falls] ou leur depressions.

And in the early English translation London, 1598, no divergence . . .

Regards
Jonny

I did some desktop and book shelf research on peregrine and Morin's use of the term. I'm afraid I don't own Bonatti:

Deb wrote:

In English we have ?peregrine? as an adjective (as it is in astrology) or ?to peregrinate? as a verb. I don?t think we have it as a noun.

Yes we do: First from Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 1913 edition:

Peregrination (Page: 1064)

Per`e*gri*na"tion (?), n. [L. peregrinatio: cf. F. p?r?grination.] A traveling from one country to another; a wandering; sojourn in foreign countries. His peregrination abroad." Bacon.

From the Online Etymology Dictionary

peregrination Look up peregrination at Dictionary.com
1528, from O.Fr. peregrination (12c.), from L. peregrinationem (nom. peregrinatio) "a journey," from peregrinatus, pp. of peregrinari "to journey or travel abroad," from peregrinus "from foreign parts, foreigner," from peregre "abroad," properly "that found outside Roman territory," from per- (q.v.) + agri, loc. of ager "field, territory, land, country" (see acre).

My understanding of the astrological meaning is that it is a stranger in a strange land. Think of a powerful politician in country A travelling to country B where he is unknown. He has no authority, no power, no ability to do the things he can do when he is home. This would not be the case if he were in detriment or fall where he is capable of performing great mischief. I know of no traditional authority who makes such an unqualified statement, though.

Morin

What follows is from Book 18 on the strength of the planets translated by Anthony LaBruzza (Tony Louis). Keep in mind, like his contemporaries and some of his predecessors, Morin writes forcefully and seems to be extreme in his views. His actual delineations are not that way. Morin does not use terms or faces and his triplicity rulers vary from those of Dorotheus and Ptolemy. Therefore, a planet is more likely to be peregrine in Morin's system than in the others that use 5 essential dignities. Words in brackets are from the translator and are inserted to help clarify. Anything in brackets followed by my initials are my own explanations:

"When a planet does not occupy its Domicile, Exaltation or Triplicity, it must necessarily lie in its Detriment or Fall or a sign with which it has neither affinity nor incompatibility and where it is said to be peregrine. In the case of a planet in its Detriment, by the malignant combination of and mixture of the influxes of the zodiacal sign and the planet the influences of each is so corrupted because of their incompatibility that one can expect only a perverse effect. Thus a planet in Detriment acts according to its own nature and that of its dispositor -- but in a depraved manner, much more so if its dispositor also occupies its own Detriment or Fall, or is an enemy of the planet which it receives.

...

A planet in its Fall is quite weakened in its efforts to act according to its own nature for exactly the opposite reasons it is strengthened in its Exaltation. One cannot expect a significant [beneficial] effect of the nature of an inherently benefic planet in its Fall to occur in fortunate Houses of the horoscope for obviously that planet receives support only with extreme difficulty, and from some other place as, for example, from a good aspect from its dispositor. In bad Houses, however, it [a planet in Fall] it certainly does harm. ... Therefore any planet in its Fall will act in accord with its own debilitated nature, the sign that it occupies, and the dispositor to which it is subordinated.

"Finally, a planet that is only peregrine [that is, posited in an unrelated sign] is not corrupted, as it would be in its Detriment, and is not debilitated as it would be in its Fall, but becomes only somewhat weaker. This condition occurs solely because of the planet's lack of natural compatibility or affinity with the sign. Hence, common astrologers were mistaken in assigning peregrinity (sic) a total of 5 points of weakness or debility as they would a planet in detriment [Morin is referring to the point system used by Lilly and others to determine strength - tc]. Thus in the case [of peregrinity] one must attend only to whether a planet lies in the sign of a friend or an enemy, a topic treated in Book 15 Chapter 14 of this volume [Book 15 of Astrologia Gallica translated by James Holden available from AFA- tc]. A peregrine planet in the home of a friend suffers hardly any diminution of power to act according to his own nature, and most of the time, even receives some assistance, for example, Saturn in the domicile of Jupiter often indicates riches. On the other hand if the [peregrine - tc] planet occupies the home of an enemy, it becomes frustrated and malicious, as for example, Mercury in Scorpio or Mars in Gemini, which indicate a quarrelsome, fraudulent, or mendacious mentality

For Morin, planets in detriment, fall, and those that are peregrine each act differently. This is also the case for all traditional authorities. Therefore it seems that a planet cannot be simultaneously two of the above. It can only be one. Saturn in Aries is in its fall. It is not also peregrine (remember no terms and faces). Using the 5 level dignity system we would have to modify that to the first 25 degrees of Aries as Saturn is in his terms in the last degrees of that sign.

A Planet in detriment behaves in a particular manner. Its "behavior" is not modified depending on whether or not it is also peregrine. Without the terms and faces, and using Morin's triplicity rulers, this is less complex that it seems at first reading.

Should an enterprising reader think to inquire, "What about Mars in Cancer?" I admit I don't know for certain. In Morin's system the water triplicity is Jupiter by Day, Moon by night and Mars is the participating ruler only. My guess is he would claim that Mars is in Fall and that's that. A planet has dignity, debility, or it is peregrine seems to be his rule.

Tom

Hi Tom

Thanks for your contribution. This does clear up the Morin situation and show that he really did approach the matter as Jonny described. Maybe it was Morin that has created this alternate opinion? I?ve also found it in De-Vore, but it had to come from somewhere and I was starting to think it could be from Morin. But it is simply not correct to say that this is the case for all traditional authorities. We know that this is not the approach that Lilly or the English 17th century astrologers took, because we have so many example charts from this period where their techniques are clearly demonstrated. For Lilly, for example, see his reference to Saturn being in fall and peregrine in CA., p.400.

He has no authority, no power, no ability to do the things he can do when he is home. This would not be the case if he were in detriment or fall where he is capable of performing great mischief. I know of no traditional authority who makes such an unqualified statement, though.

Surely, the many traditional authorities that tell us to take the peregrine planet in an angle as the significator for the criminal or thief are saying exactly the opposite? The angularity gives the power and opportunity to act; the peregrine status shows that they are not honoured in that place, so have no reason to honour or protect its interests.

?A Planet Peregrine, viz. having no essentiall Dignities where he is, he is malicious beyond expression; if he be in essentiall Dignities, the lesse; for then he is like a noble soule that hath his enemy in his clutches, but scornes to hurt him.? (CA.p. 299)

I don?t think Lilly would have made this comment up; it?s an aphorism that he has obviously translated from somewhere. Bonatti also makes many references to peregrine planets being capable of causing affliction, and therefore capable of being 'the destroyer' (EG, bk 6, ch, 5: Dykes, p.378), so there is no sense of neutrality or lacking the power to do harm in that.

Lilly also talks about planets being peregrine or in detriment or fall in his theory, but it is only in his charts that we can see exactly how the techniques were used, and that the 'or' could just as easily have said 'and'. What we need is references that predate Lilly and Morin, and preferably demonstrate chart judgement in practice. This also demonstrates the importance of traditional texts presenting good indexes!

One thing I should add is that these references are very interesting to me, and I have already had my eyes opened. As I said at the start - I was unaware that this view even existed.

Hi Deb,

without any doubt Lilly adds peregrination to detriment or fall as we can read in his CA.

For example a horary, table p.179, Mars and his Debilities: detriment plus peregrine [peregrination] scores 9 debilities.

And a nativity, table p. 744, Sun in his Fall plus peregrine scores 9 debilities.

Perhaps this scoring demonstras in its baroque exaggeration the dimension of imbalance given by definition (as I tried to explain above) and this is a hint, to think the one definition of peregrination over and - perhaps - to correct it in a Morin-style way, that Tom has demonstrated and of which I thought it would be 'mainstream'.

May King Lilly forgive me!
[But he does really not explain his damnation of planets in their detriments and falls . . . ]

This definition is from John Searle?s An Ephemeris for Nine Years Inclusive, from 1609-1617 ? published in 1609, (when Lilly was only 7 years old). Here he talks about Saturn being peregrine in Aries, its sign of fall (which is handy, as at least we can all agree that would have been recognised).
Johannes I?m not sure you understood my earlier explanation that the scoring table is only balanced if peregrine can be added to the other debilities ? otherwise Mars could obtain a maximum +11 points of essential dignity, against a much smaller maximum debility of only -5.

Tom wrote:
What follows is from Book 18 on the strength of the planets translated by Anthony LaBruzza (Tony Louis).

Hi Tom,
these statements of Morin I was searching in vain, thanks!
I don't own the English translations of Morin and as I am most fluently in Latin it would be kind of you giving a hint:
Book XVIII, but which section and which chapter?
As yet I'm still searching in vain . . . but this most fluently . . .

Johannes,

It appears to start in Book 18, Chapter V, 4th paragraph. The first sentence is "Ubi vero Planeta in sua domo, exaltatione, aut Triplicitate non consistet necesse est illum versari vel in suo exilio, vel in suo casu, vel in signo fecum sympathia aut antipathia vacuo, ubi peregrinus dicitur."

You can see it here http://www.svkol.cz/~petros/astrol/mori ... 010009.jpg, f's for s's as usual.

Johannes,

GR is correct. Part One Chapter 5

Deb,

Surely, the many traditional authorities that tell us to take the peregrine planet in an angle as the significator for the criminal or thief are saying exactly the opposite? The angularity gives the power and opportunity to act; the peregrine status shows that they are not honoured in that place, so have no reason to honour or protect its interests.

I messed up in my explanation. I did not mean to imply that peregrine planets had no power to do ill. My example was one of how a planet without power to act like he does when he has great dignity, is sort of lost. If, using my example, the politician started to behave as he had authority to act at home, it would cause problems with the local authorities. I also recall reading somewhere, and it may have been Lilly, that a peregrine planet can do good or ill but usually ill. Yes accidental dignity makes a huge difference, but I?d rather deal with a peregrine Saturn than one in fall.

Morin gives a wonderful, if extreme example, of the ill that can be done by peregrine planets in Book 15. The subject matter is the proper understanding of the signs above and below the horizon, and he messes this up a bit, but the example is wonderful. Use these co-ordinates, they vary a bit from those given in the text, but the angels are close.

Zaga-Christ
Sept 1 1614
8:09 PM LMT -2:37:52
Adi Coroca, Ethiopia
6N 38? 38?
039 E 28
Zaga-Christ was prince of the Abyssinians. He was kicked out of his country (Ethiopia) by his uncle and roamed from one country to another, was put in jail from time to time, and finally died abroad penniless and destitute without ever getting home.

Look at his chart. Morin says every planet except Mercury is peregrine (wandering), and using Morin?s system, Mercury only has dignity as the participating triplicity ruler of the air sign he occupies. In Dorotheus? system he would be the night ruler of air. None of the peregrine planets receives a good aspect from a benefic. In fact Mercury only receives a sextile from Venus if we count ?out-of sign? aspects. Morin calls this aspect ?corrupted.? I don?t know that he always refers to out-of-sign aspects as corrupted. I don?t think he does.

One example: The peregrine Sun (Royalty) and Moon are the enemies of the 10th house since the two signs in the 10th Capricorn and Aquarius, are ruled by Saturn and are signs opposite those ruled by the Sun and Moon. The Sun opposes the part of fortune. This is not what we would like to see in a Royal Chart.

This is from Book 15 Chapter 1, pages 14 ? 16 in Holden?s translation.

The sharp eyed will note that Morin said all planets are peregrine, but Saturn is in Aries! Given the way he explains this in Book 18, I?m going to chalk this up to a simple error. The larger point holds: peregrine planets can cause problems. Lots of peregrine planets cause lots of problems.

Tom

GR,
thanks for your working help!