Skyscript Astrology Forum

i am trying to wrap my head around this concept...

here is an article on peregrine written by deb houlding and under the category - horary.. i am not sure how it differs if read as natal, or if it does.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/peregrine.html

a few posters made some very insightful comments on the topic of peregrine.. check them out here.. - http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... =peregrine

here is a comment from that thread that highlights 2 schools of thought on peregrine..

astralwanderer wrote: I think the question is easily answered but I've become aware of two schools of thought about the definition of 'peregrine'. The one that I am familiar with is that a planet without any essential dignity (not in its rulership, exaltation, triplicity, term or face) is peregrine.

However I am aware that there is a school of thought that if a planet is in its detriment or fall, it cannot be called peregrine. So, effectively, the definition would become that a planet without any essential dignity or debility is peregrine.

Deb Houlding's paper on the definition of peregrine clearly advances the first view, but I believe Rob Zoller promulgates the second. Unfortunately I can't track down a source for Zoller's view.

feel free to comment on how you perceive the use of peregrine in understanding natal astrology better.. thanks..

here is a simple question that someone might like to answer..

if a planet is in it's triplicity, is it peregrine?

fwiw - deb in her article on peregrine basically answers my question in the negative using lillys example of saturn in aries.. saturn is a triplicity ruler of aries, but unless it is in the last degrees of aries - it's terms - it is peregrine... i wonder if it differs for leo and sag, based on the rulership of a benefic, as opposed to a malefic?


or, is it that saturn in aries or leo is a debility whereas, not so in sag?? curious for feedback, using saturn position in relation to the triplicities here... thanks..

Personally, I'm rather in this camp:

So, effectively, the definition would become that a planet without any essential dignity or debility is peregrine.

Because a peregrine exists basically to spot a planet that has no (essential) force to act, while planets in detriment and fall are (sometimes very) able to act.

if a planet is in it's triplicity, is it peregrine?

Of course, no.

Also, IMO that's the case where it's important to keep in mind horary and natal astrology specific features: a horary chart is relevant to a given situation on a given time and the astrologer assesses whether the planet is strong enough now to carry on what it is asked for. It requires a rather strong essential or accidental dignity to be sure of the result. It works out or it doesn't work out and then we move on.

While in radix any planet will do its best to somehow try to fulfil its mission just because there's no choice. Even if it's a true peregrine with no accidental dignity (the result will probably be not glorious, but it'll keep trying).

james_m wrote: here is a simple question that someone might like to answer..

if a planet is in it's triplicity, is it peregrine?

A planet in his triplicity is in one of his own essetial dignities, and thus cannot be in peregrination.

james_m wrote:fwiw - deb in her article on peregrine basically answers my question in the negative using lillys example of saturn in aries.. saturn is a triplicity ruler of aries, but unless it is in the last degrees of aries - it's terms - it is peregrine... i wonder if it differs for leo and sag, based on the rulership of a benefic, as opposed to a malefic?


or, is it that saturn in aries or leo is a debility whereas, not so in sag?? curious for feedback, using saturn position in relation to the triplicities here... thanks..

You should be aware, in what context you are operating. Not so much as to horaries or nativities, but the more as to the writers.

For example, Lilly gives a so called Ptolemy's Table of Essential Dignities of the Planets. And as far as I can remember, Deb follows Lilly, her also using his table.

So called, because this is rather a simplified table, especially as to the triplicitiy rulers, compared with the original.

And here is the source of your problem, because, following Lilly's table(!), Saturn is NEITHER the triplicity ruler of Aries, nor of Leo or of Sagittarius.

With the exception of the last 4 degrees (his own terms) Saturn is peregrine in Aries; in Leo two sections of the sign hinder Saturn to be peregirne: a) the first six degrees are his terms, and b) the first 10 degrees are his face; in Satittarius he would not be peregrine in degrees 19 to 25 (terms) and 20 to 30 (face).

I hope this is a little of help for you to understand peregrination better.

okay thanks johannes, but to be frank, i am still a bit confused here...

is saturn a ruler of the fire triplicity? or, is it only an occasional ruler of the fire triplicity? if it is a ruler, then why do lilly and deb say it is peregrine? or, is this just for horary? sorry for these simple minded questions, but i am still out in the dark here... yes, i understand saturn rules some degrees in the fire signs, but i am curious about the relevance of triplicity rulers, and whether saturn is or isn't one, so as to determine peregrine here... my impression is their is a lack of total agreement on this topic, thus the confusion...

is saturn a ruler of the fire triplicity? or, is it only an occasional ruler of the fire triplicity? if it is a ruler, then why do lilly and deb say it is peregrine? or, is this just for horary? sorry for these simple minded questions, but i am still out in the dark here...

It depends on the system of the triplicity rulership. If you take Lilly's system, no. If Dorotheus', yes.

or, is it only an occasional ruler of the fire triplicity?

No. There are techniques (especially from Hellenistic authors) which require to use all three rulers and all three rulers mean something different: for example, judgement of the social status of a native by the accidental strength of the rulers of triplicity of the sect light. Their sequence will show the change/stability in this domain (the sect ruler will show youth, the second one the middle of the life and the participative ruler will show the end of the life).

To come back to general pattern: all three rulers are always rulers, it's just one is leading and one is helping (they skip places) and one is participating with these two at any time.

No. There are techniques (especially from Hellenistic authors) which require to use all three rulers and all three rulers mean something different: for example, judgement of the social status of a native by the accidental strength of the rulers of triplicity of the sect light. Their sequence will show the change/stability in this domain (the sect ruler will show youth, the second one the middle of the life and the participative ruler will show the end of the life).

Generally, the cooperating ruler participates with the predominant ruler with two periods in Dorotheus, Valens, Hephaistio etc. Ptolemy never uses changeover, he uses it as another houserulership (and also puts Mars as houseruler by day in Cancer and Pisces).

Persian and Arabic authors generally used the cooperating ruler as third ruler in the fullest sense, which is slightly problematic conceptually. Al-Andarzaghar developed a method of splitting house topics into 36 rulers - http://www.astrologiahumana.com/AndarzhagarEnglish.pdf

It wasn't until the Renaissance that Ptolemaic triplicity rulers got more popular, however they were used in a very Arabic way (as a lesser dignity compared to domicile and exaltation, but higher than terms), whereas real Ptolemaic dignity takes houserulership by domicile, exaltation, triplicity, term and face (not decan) equally.

Petosiris, that was just one example. The point was however to point out that all three rulers have a real meaning in techniques of those astrologers who use three lords' system.

Isn't peregrine the opposite of triplicity, term and decan taken together? The medieval astrologers were keen on opposites and tables, for example detriment is the opposite of domicile (a term that is missing in Hellenistic and Indian astrology), and depression is the opposite of exaltation.

Mari wrote:
It depends on the system of the triplicity rulership. If you take Lilly's system, no. If Dorotheus', yes.

I fully agree with you, and this is why I wrote above:

You should be aware, in what context you are operating. Not so much as to horaries or nativities, but the more as to the writers.

And in this sense the following and ongoing discussion, beginning with your text:

Mari wrote: No. There are techniques (especially from Hellenistic authors) which require to use all three rulers and all three rulers mean something different: for example, judgement of the social status of a native by the accidental strength of the rulers of triplicity of the sect light. Their sequence will show the change/stability in this domain (the sect ruler will show youth, the second one the middle of the life and the participative ruler will show the end of the life).

To come back to general pattern: all three rulers are always rulers, it's just one is leading and one is helping (they skip places) and one is participating with these two at any time.

is becoming misleading insofar, as the debility of peregrination is the subject of our discussion, and I doubt, that any of the writers and times of the teachings you are referring to, has ever used the term - or had in mind - the matter of peregrination.

I might be wrong, but when was that, what we call peregrination, developed, and who was the first author to mention it?

thanks johannas,

i understand your previous comment better now.. thanks.. yes - as far as i know, the history is this.. triplicities pre date the idea of peregrine... debs article gives the history of it, and going on memory - i think it is bonati, or abu mashar who introduced the idea which was taken up more aggressively by astrologers like lilly and etc.. they would have been faced with the conundrum of how to integrate the concept and perhaps thought to devalue the importance of the triplicity concept? or, they might have tried fine tuning it like this.. for a diurnal chart - the sun is the triplicity lord of fire.. for a nighttime chart - jupiter... saturn is relegated to the last position of - participating in this.. in fact - the idea of saturn in the fire triplicity is complicated by the fact saturn is also involved in the air triplicity in a more pronounced way...

so, yes - i am not sure how far one can go with these ideas... on a different note, i ordered the book by robert hand on Johannes Schoener https://www.arhatmedia.com/judgements.html apparently he has a lot to say in matters related to this and i look forward to reading hands commentary on it all.. perhaps this will be discussed.. if so, i will post what i find here... cheers james

My pleasure, James!

Here is a link to Lilly's second edition
of Christian Astrology.

In page 104 you shall find the Table
of Dignities I mentioned in my first text.

http://www.astrologiamedieval.com/tabel ... rology.pdf