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.

Hi Deb,

at the time you wrote this I had not yet read your explanations:

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. . . ]

with the many and striking examples!

Using all 5 classical dignities scoring would indeed be unbalanced if peregrination [I still hesitate to use this noun even though Tom's quotations seem to allow this] would not be added as a debility.

Following Morin the scoring had to be done in another way, because he does not accept terms and faces at all - and his triplicity-rulers are not derived classically.

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 !).

Thank YOU, Deb, for giving and linking all these texts!

[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.

Indeed the Moon would not be perergrine, because '. . . in Libra . . . , in decimo gradu, . . .' she would be in her face.


As you wrote earlier in this thread:

One problem is that we can?t make a straight-forward search for the word ?detriment? because even in the Medieval and Renaissance periods the debilities were known under variant names. For example, the English text of Dariot uses the words ?decayed? or ?abased? or the term ?contrary to their own houses?, but makes clear that this is an impediment.

I would finally like to refer you to my statement abvove (at the beginning of this p. 2):

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 . . .

Kind regards
Jonny

PS: Just now [Mon Feb 09, 04:56 pm] I read CA, p. 251, lines 6/7 'Peregrination'!

Hi Johannes (and sorry for my late response)

The terms I quoted were definitely from the early English translation, but the edition I used was the Fabian Withers translation on 1583. Unfortunately I have lost the specific references but the next time I work through the book I will find them again and add them into this thread. That shouldn?t be too long because I have to work through the book again for another reason soon. I did have a quick look this morning, but the only one I could find on a ?flick through? was the term ?contrary to their own houses? which is in the first paragraph of chapter 11 ?Of the misfortunes of the planets?:

?The planets are called unfortunate when they are in falling houses, or that they do not behold the ascendant, and that they are out of their own essential dignities, or being in the dignities of the malign planets as in the terms of Mars or Saturn, or that they be in their falls, or in contrary signs to their own houses, or else be retrograde or in their first station or meridional specially ascendant?.

BTW, that last comment is a curious one. I wonder if he means above the ascendant towards the south, and so specifically in the 12th house? Maybe its meaning is clearer in the Latin version that you have?

Regards
Deb

Tom wrote: 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.

I think Holden must have stated this before he translated Book 15 as in Chapter 13, p64 of this text Morin does consider a planet peregrine, even with essential debility.

"...let it be noted that every Planet that is located outside its own domicile, exaltation, or trigon is said by us to be peregrine; and consequently, preregrination is two-fold--a simple kind without essential debility, such as the Sun in Capricorn, but the other is mixed with an essential debility, such as the Sun in Aquarius, and this is a worse kind."

Which implies lack of essential dignity is the key to being peregrine with debility making the peregrination worse. I don't believe that's a break with the tradition and it would be in keeping with scoring a peregrine and debilitated planet worse than a simply peregrine planet.

Hi Deb (your response is not late as I read you have been away)

It is very late, so I quote only the English translation of Dariot, 1583,

Chapter 3, Of the first essential dignity [...], last three words.
Chapter 3, Of the second essential dignity [...], last three words of the sentence before last.

Regards
Johannes

In addition to my posting of last night:

Also in the later English edition of 1598 the same words are used in Chapter III:
"detriment or decay."
"fall and decay."

I think Holden must have stated this before he translated Book 15 as in Chapter 13, p64 of this text Morin does consider a planet peregrine, even with essential debility.

I have to admit I'm getting confused and that makes me wonder if we're simply arguing over semantics and the larger context is getting lost. Janeq gives us this quote from Morin:

"...let it be noted that every Planet that is located outside its own domicile, exaltation, or trigon is said by us to be peregrine; and consequently, preregrination is two-fold--a simple kind without essential debility, such as the Sun in Capricorn, but the other is mixed with an essential debility, such as the Sun in Aquarius, and this is a worse kind."

He seems to separate them in the quote I used above, and combine them in this quote. In Zaga-Christ's chart he states that all the planets are peregrine, except Mercury. Saturn is in his fall, and in Morin's system, peregrine, therefore Saturn in Aries is worse than Saturn would be if he were in Sagittarius, where he is peregrine but not in debility (detriment or fall). But I think we would all agree with the idea that Saturn is more problematic in Aries than Sagittarius, with or without knowledge of Saturn being peregrine in Fire. Fall is more difficult than peregrine. Fall plus peregrine is more difficult still. Two debilities are worse than one regardless of how they are labeled. I'm going to leave it at that.

Tom

Hello All:

I would like to add another consideration to this discussion. In my research involving a large number of charts from AstroDataBank, I have found that Mutual Receptions, both positive (by Rulership and Exaltation) and negative (by Detriment and Fall), act in exactly the same way as if the planets involved had been in the corresponding dignity or debility.
Because of this, I am of the opinion that mutual receptions do cancel peregrinity. I know that this is not Lilly's view, or John Frawley's for that matter.
I would like to know how others feel about this, particularly if they base their understanding on experience.
Thanks.

This is interesting.
Anyone care to comment on the question in the last post?

They do not swap places and no traditional author makes the claim that they do.

Indeed. The first author I am aware of suggesting that planets 'exchange places' due to mutual reception was I think Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson in her book Simplified Horary Astrology. published in 1960.

Her ideas have been influential on many American practitioners of astrology.

So that means that mutual debility would be like that as well? Ewwww...

My Saturn in Scorpio and my Venus in Leo do NOT like that. Not even a bit.

Planets in detriment and fall technically can't receive, at least according to some authors. So, Moon in Cap and Mars in Libra are just plain square, and not 'helping' each other at all, or at least it isn't the kind of help anybody wants. Though I see this more clearly with things like Moon and Saturn both in Cancer - ouch ouch ouch, especially the closer they are to conjunct. Not a happy pairing, even though the Moon's at home there, but Saturn certainly isn't - it just corrupts.

I have a weird generosity going, too. Venus in Pisces and Jupiter in Libra, which are also in each other's terms and face. It may just be that Venus is LoG in my chart and Jupiter's angular, but the two of them do seem to work together pretty strongly. Not sure, but they're my two strongest planets anyway, and the generosity/reception does seem to kick in.

I've also got a Jupiter/Mercury opposition, and they're in mutual reception by triplicity. Which seems to cancel out some of the harm of the opposition and both of them being retrograde - once upon a time long ago and far away I was a successful writer, and Jupiter and Mercury opposed don't really seem to point to that.

One of the things that helps ease the imbecility of retrograde planets (okay that's accidental detriment but close enough) is if it's rendered (in aspect to) a benefic that's direct. A lot of the harm of the retrograde goes poof - at least in my experience. I think it was the Arabs that wrote about that one, but I haven't got a cite right handy. It is a wise thing to keep a look-out for, though, especially natally, but to a certain extent it seems to have effect in horary, too.