Display posts from previous
Sort by

37 by Tom
Negative mutual reception is interesting, and perhaps planets so posited should have an effect on each other. It seems as though they should, even if certain authorities disagree. One example does not a rule make, but there is one that seems to work well. Janis Joplin had Saturn in Gemini and Jupiter in Cancer. Saturn ruled her Aquarius ASC. Saturn was on the 4th cusp and Jupiter was in the 5th house of pleasure or pleasurable activities. Saturn was in a mundane square to the ASC and disposited her 12th house Mercury. So Saturn seems pretty clearly to indicate depression. Jupiter in exaltation in the 5th seems pretty clearly to indicate excess good times, and it was excess that killed her. The idea is that her depression fueled the excess and the excess fueled the depression. This vicious cycle continued until her untimely death at age 27. This cycle might have been best expressed by Joplin herself. A few weeks before she died Jimi Hendrix was found dead of an overdose. When told, she replied, "Rats, he beat me to it."

There is, of course, more to her and her life than these two planets, but the parts of her life that worked against her most seem to be captured in this negative reception.

Tom

PS I took a look at Joplin's solar return for 1970 after writing the above. The idea is that if Jupiter and Saturn are connected in the natal chart indicating some kind of destructive behavior, that connection will somehow be activated in the solar return for the year of her death. I tried to find out where she was in January 1970 but did not definitely pinpoint it. I may have it though, but I cannot confirm it. I know she ended her relationship with one band in either December 1969 or January 1970. Her drug addiction was bad at that time and she travelled to Brazil in February 1970 to dry out. I found out that she visited friends in Tuchas, New Mexico in 1970 and the chronologies given from the time of her trip to Brazil to her death in October do not seem to allow for time for what appears to be an extended visit. So I used it and I also used her birthplace where I believe her parents still lived, as well as taking a guess that she lived in LA.

The chart that most indicates her death is the one cast for New Mexico, but all charts have a Jupiter in Scorpio - Saturn in Taurus opposition that falls by antiscion fairly close (about 2 degrees) to the natal ASC - DSC axis. Of course this would be true in any chart.

The Tuchas chart and the Port Arthur Texas chart put Saturn, her natal ASC ruler, in the 8th house of the return and Jupiter in the second. Venus rules the natal 8th house and in the return she is combust. Interestingly in the return charts she is in a mutual reception by exaltation with Mars which is the ruler of the return 8th in Texas and NM. This is a reversal of the natal chart where Venus rules the 8th and Mars rules the 2nd.

Now I'm drifting from the point that the natal connection by mutual reception by detriment is activated by the opposition in the return - no matter where she spent it. Of the three return charts the natal and Tuchas, NM charts seem most revealing. LA does not and watch it turn out that she spent her last birthday there.
Last edited by Tom on Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

38 by PFN
Now, I feel my chart can be a good example for this...

My chart almuten is Mars, and it's conjunct Venus in Leo. And as already stated, my Saturn is in Scorpio.

The result in my chart tends to be very easily verifiable and seen, and I'll use Frawley "style" to make my point easier to grasp:

Saturn in early degrees of Scorpio loves Mars, Mars hates Saturn, Venus and Saturn hates each other.

The effect is interesting: Saturn produces bad effects in terms of venusian matters and to the houses she rules, and the damage is reciprocated. Now, Saturn does not damage martial matters, due to the mixed reception, actually, for Mars, my Saturn tends to be very efficient in providing support that results in somewhat positive things for me, since Saturn is one of the two angular planets on my chart (understand that this 'positive' is in the good old Saturn style, and because Saturn rules 10th and 11th, and Mars 1st and 8th, we ought to see some result there anyway, even if this Saturn dispositing is peregrine, as in my case). Still, what is ruled by my Saturn tends to get damaged by my Mars, since he still hates Saturn, even more because he's conjunct Venus.
Last edited by PFN on Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

39 by p19997
Hi All.

I'm enjoying the responses to my request for sharing of experiences. Thanks all.

One of the respondents brought up the "planets exchanging places" theory that some people subscribe to. I wanted to make it clear that I do not subscribe to that theory. My only contention is that planets in negative or positive mutual receptions are similarly benefited or hurt, both in their strength as well as the quality of their influence (good vs. evil). I don't believe for a minute they "swap places."

I also agree that being in a positive mutual reception doesn't confer essential dignity. Can't argue with a definition (though one could argue that perhaps he wasn't precise enough). Nevertheless, it seems to me that being strengthened and benefited in quality, by whatever means, should overcome being in the weak state and poor quality that being peregrine really means.

When assigning points, Lilly gave equal essential dignity points for mutual receptions involving rulership and exaltation. He must of had some basis for doing this. Later on, his student Coley continued this practise, implying that Lilly continued to do so after CA was written and towards the end of his life (he obviously read Coley's book as evidenced by the front matter).

With respect to negative mutual receptions, I have verified that they exist and work exactly as John Frawley described them.

One of the reasons I'm wondering if positive mutual receptions don't offset peregrinity is that peregrinity occurs very often in charts and it doesn't seem to have much effect on things. Either there's not much to it or something else, beyond what is traditionally accepted, compensates for it.


Cheers

40 by Tom
When assigning points, Lilly gave equal essential dignity points for mutual receptions involving rulership and exaltation. He must of had some basis for doing this.
To the best of my knowledge, Lilly didn't invent this system, but I don't know who did. Morin refers to it and credits "the ancients." He doesn't mention Lilly, although they were contemporaries, I don't know if either was aware of the existence of the other.

Secondly I think too much importance is placed on it. I've never seen a reference in Christian Astrology or anywhere else that reads like this: Saturn has 7 points and Mars only has 5 so Saturn is of more importance in this chart." And then the astrologer goes on to make a judgment based on that. It seems to me that the list is a guideline consisting of useful information, but that it is not used by adding up the scores and comparing them. For example, it is useful to realize that a particular planet in triplicity and terms has as much essential dignity as a planet in exaltation, but it does not necessarily follow the the planet in exaltation will be no more influential in the chart. Or if the planet in exaltation is cadent and the other is angular, it might explain why the latter is more influential than a planet in exaltation.

Although the information is useful, I wouldn't place too much emphasis on the scores, and I would resist the urge to judge the planets by simnply adding up the points.

Tom

41 by Deb
Since I have it handy, I thought I would add this reference to where Lilly gives a definition of peregrine in a margin note in CA (p.331) which reads:"A planet is then peregrine when he is neither in his house, triplicity, term, exaltation or face."

42 by Andrew Bevan
p19997 wrote: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.
My opinion is that a planet located in a state of debilitation, ie. peregrine, detriment or fall, is not in a position to offer assistance to any other planet by reception. On the contrary, what the planet has to offer to those planets that it disposes of is more likely to be rather a drag, worry or concern. It is like going to a bank only to discover that it has run out of cash. Or, you are invited to a party but when you reach your host's place it is only to discover that the cupboard is bare.

A planet out of its dignities is in a state of poverty and weakness. For a reception to be beneficial at least one planet has to be essentially dignified or in a state of comfort. If a planet is disposed by a planet that is in the detriment of fall of the first planet ('deception') then this indicates a relationship that doesn't balance out because the one part keeps letting the side down or does damage to the other. If two planets are located in signs of each others debilation ('rejection') then the two planets abhor each other and the matter is aborted.

Goldstein-Jacobsen says that a debilitated planet may be saved by reception, but I still maintain that the participating planet must be of such a quality that it actually has something to offer.

On pages 178-180 of Christian Astrology, Lilly does not let the reception between Mercury and Saturn by face, save them from perigrination.
http://www.astronor.com

Re: Peregrine - what definition do you use?

43 by handn
Deb wrote:
johannes susato wrote:
Elfpower wrote:I've been operating under the assumption that a planet that has some sort of an essential dignity or an essential debility is not peregrine.
This is, I think, the mainstream-opinion.
quote]

Hi Johannes,
I wouldn't agree that this is the mainstream opinion. In fact, I'm surprised to discover that such an opinion exists because I've never come across it before. (I would obviously say that to be peregrine means having no essential dignity, and a planet can be peregrine with or without being essentially debilitated). I would be interested to know if there are any traditional references that say otherwise.

Thanks
Deb

Hi all

I realise this is an old thread but it stuck in my mind because having just re-read John Frawley's Horary Textbook I recall that what he teaches in that book (no idea about his other writings/teachings) is the first one, i.e. a planet that has some sort of an essential dignity or an essential debility is not peregrine. He does have a second reference to peregrine planets under a 'mutual receptions' section.

His first reference in the book is on page 51, under 'Peregrine':

"A planet that is not in any of its own dignities, nor in its detriment or fall, is peregrine.... Being in mutual reception does not stop a planet being peregrine: essential dignity cannot be transferred from one planet to another."

Then on page 78 in the section about mutual reception:

"There is another idea that peregrine planets cannot be in mutual reception. Of course they can. A peregrine planet is like a homeless wanderer, mutual reception like friendship. A homeless wanderer can still have friends. He may not be able to help them much, but such friendship is better than nothing."

Those are the only two references to it listed in the index.

Regards

H.

44 by ###
Thanks for reviving this old thread. It pertains what I was sitting here doing before popping in to see what was going on. I've only quickly skimmed to review what has been written, and will limit myself at this point to a statement by Andrew B. in the next-to-last post:
My opinion is that a planet located in a state of debilitation, ie. peregrine, detriment or fall, is not in a position to offer assistance to any other planet by reception. On the contrary, what the planet has to offer to those planets that it disposes of is more likely to be rather a drag, worry or concern. . . .

A planet out of its dignities is in a state of poverty and weakness. For a reception to be beneficial at least one planet has to be essentially dignified or in a state of comfort. If a planet is disposed by a planet that is in the detriment of fall of the first planet ('deception') then this indicates a relationship that doesn't balance out because the one part keeps letting the side down or does damage to the other. If two planets are located in signs of each others debilation ('rejection') then the two planets abhor each other and the matter is aborted.
That sounds possible and fitting enough for a horary or electional chart. However, many natal charts have loads of peregrine planets, and most of those people seem to do well enough. The ? energy field? ? the creative and productive forces of emotions, desires and intentions of a living person are not the same as the events caused by such forces. In natal astrology I think peregrine planets are a matter of often acting in a lost or misdirected, wavering and often inappropriate way. But the human mind and heart being more powerful and creative than astrological rules concerning essential dignities, I think it's quite possible for a peregrine dispositor in a natal chart to offer assistance to a 'guest'. The two of them might fumble around awkwardly at first, but with the right subjects of interest to them both the conversation will start rolling.

I'm not out to get Andrew. :lol: The presumption that one approach can fit all types of charts seems to be something comfortable that we all easily slip into.

The past few days I've been redesigning Solar Fire pages and decided to include on one of them the cancellation of peregrinity by mutual reception through domicile and exaltation, for use with natal charts. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it cancels their peregrine condition, but the planet, or both if they are both peregrine, seems to find a buddy to help find an aim and focus . It may be an undesirable aim and focus, but they've got one! At this point I'm also requiring that they be in aspect. So far, it has described some chart natives quite well and provided a good description of the actions.

*********************************************

But now I see where I'm oversimplifying. :bl If we're describing the personal qualities and abilities of the person, then, yes, we need to allow for that something elusive and unpredictable in each of us. But natal astrology isn't solely about the mind, heart and soul of the chart native. If we're looking for the circumstances of his or her life, such as home, family, money and work, then we can consider the condition of the significators in the more cut-and-dry manner of horary.

So Andrew gets his revenge, without even knowing the discussion was going on. :o

47 by Pleiades
Tom wrote: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,

Would you inform which planets are friends or enemies?

48 by johannes susato
Pleiades wrote:Hi,

Would you inform which planets are friends or enemies?
You can find this information in:
William Lilly, CA, pp. 57 to 83.

Perhaps, or very probably, Morin would dissent of Lilly's opinion. :D
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”