Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hi,

I am looking for a chart and confused about dignities.
According to Lilly Dignity Table, mutual reception on own sign gives +5 and pregrine gives -5.
On the chart I am working on, moon is on 5 degrees on aquarius. In this case it's peregrine and it has mutual reception with saturn in cancer (saturn opposes to moon). So it has +5 for mutual reception in own sign. In this case, does it have +5 essential dignity or zero essential dignity?

1. My question is when a planet is peregrine, if it has mutual reception on own or exaltation sign, do we consider it as "not peregrine" or do we add peregrine point (-5) to essential dignity calculation?

2.My second question is in the same situation, but this time mutual reception is in trip, term or face basis, do we consider the planet as "not peregrine" or do we add peregrine point (-5) to essential dignity calculation?

3. If the planet has mutual reception, but in hard aspect to its dispozitor (opposition or square), does it gives any minus point to dignity?

3. If a peregrine planet receives conjunction, trine or sextile from its dispositor, does it gives any plus point to essential or accidential dignity?

Solar fire program, by default, does not consider the planet as peregrine if it has mutual reception.

What makes a planet peregrine is, there is no support or bad connection about its occupation, like a person in foreign country and does not know what to do, can not speak the same language with others. However some literatures advice that being in mutual reception does not stop the planet to be peregrine.

Pleiades

Probably a lot of people will disagree with me here, but my advice would be to ignore where Lilly includes Mutual Reception as affecting dignity - I always get the feeling with Lilly that he's trying to be 'quick and easy' with his definitions and expects readers to follow on to his examples where we see exactly what he means in how he uses his techniques. I personally do not think he was as lucid or articulate as he might have been when it comes to giving technical distinctions - perhaps he would have been more careful if he thought anyone would care what he had to say 400 years after he died!

Personally I don't think it makes sense for Mutual Reception to alter the dignity of the planet, I think instead that we see with Mutual Reception by sign that both can provide 'aid' or help to one another such that whilst a given planet has no access to its own resources (something which dignity confers), that being in a mutually receptive relationship with another planet is a lot like being helped enough by that planet that you are aided by the others' resource, and vice versa. This is probably where the idea that mutual reception indicates 'swapping places' came from in modern astrology. I think that really Lilly is probably trying to be simplistic and cut out the technical nuance and recognises that even though a planet may have no dignity, being received, and indeed mutually so, can help a planet to such an extent that in certain practical ways it may not be much of a difference.

Either way, receptions, mutual or otherwise, don't actually confer dignity - they describe the nature of the relationship between two planets, in otherwise they are descriptors of the aspect. Bonatti makes the point more obviously when he describes squares with reception as behaving more like trines. We see that reception helps ameliorate stress/friction/tension between planetary aspects rather than confer dignity.

When a planet is in a sign, its dispositor helps to dispose of the affairs of that planet - it plays host to the planet which are guests in its sign. If two planets are guests in one another's home, then they are both in a place where they would do well to treat each other particular well, as they themselves are guests to their host, and host to their guest. So I think that Lilly recognised this pattern and so makes the especial distinguisher for mutual reception by sign (ie, mutual dispositorship, aka generosity) as being something notable enough that although a planet won't really be more dignified, it's aided in such a way that perhaps, for Lilly, it doesn't matter too much in a practical sense. The two planets can help each other out and are probably equally motivated to do so. This is probably a touch of optimism on Lilly's part and it probably assumes that the two planets are not in one another's fall/detriment instead.

I'm just guessing of course, but with Lilly we should probably take all his technical distinctions as being 'rough and ready rules of thumb'.

Thank you

I am not sure whether to open another thread or not, but essentially the topic heading would be the same so I will add to this one.

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.

Anyway, any opinions on this would be welcome.

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.

Hi astralwanderer

That is correct, this is Zoller's view. Additionally, this is the view that Ben Dykes also takes who was a student of his.

I am not a student of Zoller's so will not quote from him, but will quote from Dykes who says much the same thing as him:

A peregrine planet is one that has neither dignity nor debility in its zodiacal position, hence it lacks any special strengths or weaknesses.

Using Medieval Astrology Part 1, by Ben Dykes


I think there's possibly two ways of thinking of peregrination - the idea is essentially that the planet is homeless, that it has no rulership/resource over the degree of the zodiac it is in. Of course if a planet is in fall, and it has no other dignity there, then it will, by this definition, be peregrine - it will be a homeless wanderer. This is the kind of thinking often summised by those propagating the first view you mentioned (which you cite Deb as adhering to).

The other way of thinking about it is often in terms of clear distinction and may have relevance in terms of some sort of 'dignity scoring', even if only a 'mental' kind of scoring table - do we want to penalise a planet twice, first for being not in any degree it has a rulership over, and then again for being in one where it is weakened by detriment/fall? In other words a way of discerning when a planet is not in detriment or fall, but it's also not in any dignity - which probably most planets are - and so rather than caveat that there's something additional if that planet is ALSO in detriment or fall, we can just reserve the word peregrine to actually mean not in detriment or fall either. I'm just guessing here.


I think it's strange that so many medievally inclined astrologers include "and not in detriment or fall" to discern when a planet is peregrine or not. I think if you think of the idea of whether the planet is homeless in that sign, and that even the lowest forms of dignity are at least having some resource where that planet is (even just a couch to crash on, to keep the homeless analogy), then it's surprising why a planet in detriment or fall, if not otherwise dignified, suddenly is no longer homeless. Surely Mars at 10 degrees of Libra, having no dignity whatsoever, is therefore homeless? It's probably another consideration altogether that our homeless man is also further weakened by being in a sign which is actively sapping or corrupting its essential strength is another matter?


If we look to what Bonatti says of Peregrine:

The eighth [consideration before judgement] is when it is peregrine, that is, when it is in a place in which it does not have any dignity; or they are superiors followed by the Sun, or the inferiors pursue him.

Bonatti's 146 Considerations before, Treatise 5, trans by Ben Dykes

What's curious is that we don't see any mention of him negating peregrination if detriment/fall is involved, and indeed we see another criterion which seems to be more related to falling under the sun's beams. Certainly later Bonatti drops this additional criterion, but doesn't seem to include any mention of peregrination not applying for planets which are in detriment or fall.

The 40th consideration from the same text:

The 40th consideration is that you look to see if a malefic planet were peregrine (whether it was the significator or not): that is, that he is not in any of his own dignities. Because then his malice is made greater

and the 47th he reiterates that dignity is the only thing involved:

...or were the significator peregrine (namely that it did not have dignity in the place in which it was)...

The word peregrine implies someone who is 'foreign' or not native, or not at home in a particular place. Bonatti clearly takes this to mean not in any dignity - ie, not in any place the planet has a 'home' or rather has resources or rulership.


So I'm not sure entirely why Zoller etc. define peregrine by distinguishing not only whether the planet has no dignity, but also where it is not in detriment or fall.

Perhaps someone else can find some references by a medieval astrologer who defines it like this?

Further reading this article and forum discussion, it is suggested that if a planet is peregrine, it should be observed whether if it is in friends or enemies house. Do you know which planets are friends or enemies?

Pleiades wrote:Further reading this article and forum discussion, it is suggested that if a planet is peregrine, it should be observed whether if it is in friends or enemies house. Do you know which planets are friends or enemies?

I'm not quite sure what that means. Really for me, when looking at a planet which is peregrine, we need to ask ourselves what the dispositor of that planet is doing - this is the planet which is hosting our homeless 'guest'. As our peregrine planet cannot really access his own resources, he'll be more likely to 'lean' on his host to try to be aided or have his situation ameliorated by his host. So if the disposing planet is a benefic, we might imagine our peregrine planet to be helped by this, similarly if malefic then a more destructive element may feature. Of course a malefic in dignity may well show a less destructive quality and vice versa, similarly a benefic in detriment or fall may show a less benefic quality and vice versa. A planet which is peregrine sort of has to survive on its wits, which is probably why it was considered signifying someone 'clever' - both to do good and as well as harm, though tending toward trickery or harm.

Really I think when you see a planet which is peregrine, it's a good idea to look at the dispositor.

I'm not sure what is meant by friend or enemy in this context though. Hopefully someone else can clarify or perhaps you could quote/cite where you read this from in case it's a matter of context.

Hi Paul - firstly, many thanks for taking the time to post such a helpful and comprehensive reply. I really struggle to get my thoughts round the idea that a planet in its detriment or fall is not peregrine. Almost by definition, as you say, it is 'out of place', rootless, wandering.

Anyway, both Zoller and Dykes are clearly great scholars so it is important to listen to what they have to say. I think your view that when planets are debilitated we have to look to their rulers to see what sort of help is available to them, is a very useful approach.

For example, I have the Sun in early Libra in a day chart, and Saturn in very late Aquarius. Saturn is highly dignified, and the Sun is without essential dignity and in its fall. OK - it's a diurnal chart. However, Saturn is a great help to my Sun - the two are well adjusted to each other - but I think the Sun is still peregrine. It's just got a well placed Saturn to help it along.

Anyway, many thanks for your contribution here.

Pleiades wrote:Hi,

I am looking for a chart and confused about dignities.
According to Lilly Dignity Table, mutual reception on own sign gives +5 and pregrine gives -5.
On the chart I am working on, moon is on 5 degrees on aquarius. In this case it's peregrine and it has mutual reception with saturn in cancer (saturn opposes to moon). So it has +5 for mutual reception in own sign. In this case, does it have +5 essential dignity or zero essential dignity?

1. My question is when a planet is peregrine, if it has mutual reception on own or exaltation sign, do we consider it as "not peregrine" or do we add peregrine point (-5) to essential dignity calculation?

The fact that the table is giving 5 points for mutual reception by house does not mean, that mutual reception is a dignity. Mentioning mutual reception within the context of essential dignities does not make it to be one. Essential dignities are exclusively and only those by house, exaltation, triplicity, term and face.
So a planet in peregrination (Moon in 5? of Aquarius) gets (-5), and, being in mutual reception by house, 5. Thus her strength would be 0.

Pleiades wrote: 2.My second question is in the same situation, but this time mutual reception is in trip, term or face basis, do we consider the planet as "not peregrine" or do we add peregrine point (-5) to essential dignity calculation?

There are no points in the table given for these smaller receptions. So, following the table, the planet is peregrine and gets (-5).

Pleiades wrote: 3. If the planet has mutual reception, but in hard aspect to its dispozitor (opposition or square), does it gives any minus point to dignity?

Only if in addition certain conditions, mentioned by the table, are fulfilled.

Pleiades wrote: 3. If a peregrine planet receives conjunction, trine or sextile from its dispositor, does it gives any plus point to essential or accidential dignity?

Only if in addition certain conditions, mentioned by the table, are fulfilled.

Pleiades wrote: Solar fire program, by default, does not consider the planet as peregrine if it has mutual reception.

This is certainly not correct.

The traditional definition of a planet's being peregrine is, that he is in none of his own dignities. Being in mutual reception (and only in that by house) might strengthen him, but does not give any essential dignity (in a technical sense) to that planet, even though the table may give 5 points in this case.

As to the best of my remembrance Morin de Villefranche was the first author to give the definition that:
a planet is peregrine, which is neither in his own dignities nor in his own debilities.

Following Morin peregrination is a kind of neutral state, between dignities and debilities.

Following Lilly peregrination is a very bad state.

Following Bonatus peregrination is a state a bit between good and bad, but with a clear tendency to bad.

Pleiades wrote: What makes a planet peregrine is, there is no support or bad connection about its occupation, like a person in foreign country and does not know what to do, can not speak the same language with others. However some literatures advice that being in mutual reception does not stop the planet to be peregrine.

As pictures are sometimes misleading I should like to stick to be more abstract, following the traditional defintion:

A planet is peregrine, when he has no support at all, because he is in none of his dignities.
If he is in one of his dignities, thus being supported he cannot be peregrine.

In contrast to that a planet, even though in his detriment or fall, can be supported or strengthened (a little) by his being in one of his lesser dignities like his own triplicity, term or face.

For example, the Moon in 15? of Capricorne is in her detriment (-5) and at the same time peregrine (-5). In total (-10)
If she were in mutual reception with Saturn (5), the total was (-5).

The Moon in 25? of Capricorne was still in her detriment (-5), but in the dignity of her own face, (1), and not in her peregrination any longer. In total (-4).
If at that same time in mutual reception with Saturn (5), her points in total were (1).

Thank you Johannes.

One of the dangers to using a point system for things like dignity is a temptation to become a little too quantitative about these things, rather than understanding the chart in a qualitative fashion. One of the beautiful things about essential dignities and debilities (and accidental dignities and debilities, for that matter), is the richness of information one can glean from the chart.

While of course, points are necessary when it comes to things like calculating an almuten or other such matter, I think that they lose value when interpreting a chart, particular a Nativity Chart.

While there may be different views on the matter in traditional sources, to me it does not make sense that a planet can avoid being peregrine solely by being in detriment or fall. Indeed, in my own practice, I have seen a great deal of difference in the actions of planets in detriment and fall, depending on whether they are also peregrine.

I think it is helpful to look at the essential dignity of planets in terms of how well they are able to ACT, or accomplish what it is that they want to accomplish. Mars is a good planet to use for illustration (even though he is a malefic, which changes the analysis a little), because Mars is all about action, so the illustration can be a bit clearer.

Mars in Aries, Scorpio, or Capricorn can pretty much do directly whatever he wants to do. I have heard that exaltation is like being an honored guest in a sign, and things are done for the planet, but for all practical purposes, Mars can do what he wants to do in these signs. He also has dignity by triplicity (using Dorothean triplicities) in Scorpio and Capricorn as well, so in many ways is more effective than he is in Aries. My own Mars is in Aries, so I can attest from personal experience that Mars in Aries often loses steam after an initial outburst. Mars in Scorpio or Capricorn often has greater staying power or persistence, and accomplishes more.

Now, of course, Mars is a malefic, so one may not always want him to be able to accomplish more, but he is happier when active and able to do what he likes to do, so he is more likely to be positive in one's chart in these signs, and can even act as a benefic. My Mars in Aries in his joy in the 6th House helps me to work hard, and he is much happier when I am working hard!

By the same logic, a planet that is peregrine, with no dignity, can not act in the sign he is in. For example, Mars in Leo (in a degree not dignified by term or face). Mars really can not accomplish anything, and Mars being Mars is not all that happy about it and will misbehave out of general grumpiness according to the sign. Mars in Leo often has quite a temper that gets big and dramatic, fighting a lot without accomplishing anything.

Now, if Mars is peregrine in a sign that is also a sign of detriment or fall, which in Mars' case is Libra, he is in a hostile sign and unable to act. Because Mars is a malefic, that may be a better situation, depending on how one sees things or circumstances, because one may not really *want* Mars to be able to act. In a Nativity, I have often noticed that Mars in Libra tends toward being manipulative or passive aggressive, and tends mostly to annoy others rather than actually accomplishing anything.

Mars in Taurus or Cancer are a bit different. Mars does have some ability to act in these signs, even though these signs are hostile to him. In practice, I have found that Mars in Taurus and Cancer both tend to make natives a bit grumpy and territorial. Picture a cranky old lady with her "Keep Off the Grass" sign that she ferociously enforces by telling off the neighborhood children. In my experience, no one can hold grudges longer than those with Mars in Taurus or Cancer.

Reception and mutual reception can help a peregrine planet; however, I do not think that these things really change the fact that the planet is peregrine. Let us go back to Mars in Libra. Say the Native also has Venus in Libra. Mars may not be able to accomplish anything on his own, but he can appeal to Venus to do so for him (particularly if Mars and Venus are conjunct). What the Native can accomplish through direct action may be limited; however, Venus can get him what he wants. Venus can use negotiation and charm to accomplish what Mars can not when he is being manipulative or passive aggressive. This is helpful information when advising a person.

Mutual reception may or may not as helpful, depending on the circumstances. Say for instance, the native with Mars in Libra also had Venus peregrine in Aries, and say that Mars and Venus are also in opposition. Sure, they are in mutual reception, but Venus can not really accomplish anything by herself either. In a Nativity chart, one could safely predict that this person would have relationship troubles. If Mars and Venus were able to learn to work together, they may be able to assist each other. The native has to learn when to negotiate and when to be directly assertive, and it will never really feel natural. I think that despite the opposition, Venus in Aries is more helpful to the native than she would be if she was peregrine in Leo (even if the planets were sextile each other), because the mutual reception gives them the chance to work together to accomplish what neither of them could accomplish on their own.

Of course, if one were doing a horary or an electional, a quantitative use of the "rules" can be useful. A Nativity chart is for a person's lifetime, so she will have a whole lifetime to learn how to work with her planets (including the debilitated or peregrine planets). In a horary, one is answering a specific question, so an in-depth qualitative analysis may not be useful, although it can sometimes be helpful to flesh out some of the details. In a electional, the qualitative analysis could be helpful to give ideas and advice as to how to mitigate some of the more difficult parts of the chart...because it is almost impossible to find a perfect chart, with no problems whatsoever.

Myriam Hildotter wrote: I think it is helpful to look at the essential dignity of planets in terms of how well they are able to ACT, or accomplish what it is that they want to accomplish. Mars is a good planet to use for illustration (even though he is a malefic, which changes the analysis a little), because Mars is all about action, so the illustration can be a bit clearer.

...

Now, if Mars is peregrine in a sign that is also a sign of detriment or fall, which in Mars' case is Libra, he is in a hostile sign and unable to act. Because Mars is a malefic, that may be a better situation, depending on how one sees things or circumstances, because one may not really *want* Mars to be able to act. In a Nativity, I have often noticed that Mars in Libra tends toward being manipulative or passive aggressive, and tends mostly to annoy others rather than actually accomplishing anything.

That's interesting Myriam, I think I would have said almost the opposite. That Mars in dignity shows the quality or 'togetherness' of the planet (which may affect how it acts). So I would say that Mars in Libra affects the quality of action rather than the quantity of that action.
Mars, a malefic, in a sign where it is dignified tends to show the productive actions of Mars, whilst in detriment or fall tends to offer a kind of corruption to the best qualities of Mars and we see its more malefic nature.

The more dignified a planet, the more moderate the quality of its actions, and moderation here can be considered a benefic quality. The less dignified the planet, the less moderate it is. The focus being on the quality rather than ability/power.

In fact we often see traditional authors suggest that a malefic strong in essential dignity can act like a benefic, whilst a benefic corrupted by being in fall or detriment can act like a malefic. This idea stretches back at least to the arabic astrologers.