Can planets in Fall or Detriment be peregrine?

tsmall

Premium Member
Thank you, Tsmall. After some pondering and reading of ancient texts, I can't agree. A peregrini had no basic rights afforded to citizens at all, not even the right to an attorney or trial by jury. Summary judgment and execution was common. A defendant in his detriment or fall from grace may be debilitated but still has the right to defend himself, but not so when peregrine.

Correct. To bring this back to astrology, and how to view peregrine planets...a peregrine planet has no rights afforded to it. This is not dissimilar to my postulation that peregrine planets have no inherent resources available to them. Going back to the wiki article you linked, those peregrini were completely at the mercy of whomever ruled the civitates peregrinae in which they dwelled. Some were good, some were not so great. Again tying this back to astrology, this is why it is said that peregrine planets are completely at the mercy of their rulers.

Most important, they couldn't marry citizens and if they cohabited, their children were illegitimate. Ptolomey gives Rome to Leo. That means that Sun/citizens of Leo couldn't marry the natural compliment, Sun in Aquarius. The children of Leo (Sag) are of the same triplicity, and those of Aquarius are Romulus and Remus. Not citizens? Illegitimate? I don't think so.

Ok...why? Remember that we are trying to tie the use of the word peregrine as a description to a planet with no essential dignity, and not trying to pass judgement on what we believe to be fair. Astrology is a language, and I believe from your earlier posts that you understand that. Which is why I was so excited that you traced down the root definition, as well as the connotations given for the word.


My next deciding factor is on page 115 of Christian Astrology, Lily lists a separate score for fall, detriment and peregrine. It makes no sense to list them separately if they are one and the same. That would be like being charged with both armed robbery and unlawful use of a firearm. They may be able to get away with it but that doesn't make it correct or in line with the spirit of the law. Double jeopardy is also ruled out. I realize that the page where Lily defines peregrine seems to allow the possibility that one in debility could also be peregrine. But, he is no more perfect than you or I and has made som typographical errors. It makes no sense that he would score the debilities next to the dignities, if they were not to be treated together under the category of essential dignities, the latter being a negative dignity. After all, our negative qualities are part of our overall dignity. So, where did Lily learn about peregriation?

Probably from Bonatti, who got it from the Persians. I can acknowledge your argument, as mine was the same. The key is in understanding that debility, as well as dignity, can stack (to quote Kai.) Why, for example, does Saturn often get to be almuten of Libra? Especially between the 1st and 6th degrees in a day chart? Because there, Saturn has dignity by exaltation, term and tripilcity. See how dignity can stack? Saturn has way more dignity in the 1st degrees of Libra than Venus, hands down.




The Introduction to the Science of the Judgments of the Stars, Sahl Ibn Bishr lists 10 debilities, the 8th being, “...when a planet is in a domicile in which it has no testimony, ie no dignity, ie it is where it is not in its own domicile or in its own exaltation or in its own triplicity, etc., and when it is peregrine and already being pursued by the Sun, ie when it is before the Sun. http://books.google.com/books?id=i9g-_JFVNJcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=peregrine&f=false I believe the etc could include the debility portion of the list of testimonies. Being in fall or detriment is a testimony, don't you think?

You have this book? Jealolus. It's on my list.

I believe that you are misreading Saul. What sooo many ancient authors leave out, because they assume knowlegede on the part of the reader, are the specifics in every statement.

You already answered this question yourself.

A defendant in his detriment or fall from grace may be debilitated but still has the right to defend himself, but not so when peregrine.

Again, correct. Ok, so I'm not a terribly religious person, but the best way I can think at the moment to explain it is...consider the story of Jesus. Because it is from the same time period as we are discussing, and applies. Jesus could be considered as peregrini, since all of Judea was under Roman rule, Isralites were peregrine, with "overseers" that came from the locals and who were looking for favor and controlling the population as per that same article you linked to.

In this analogy, Jesus is not only peregrine, but in detriment. What happened to him? We could say that his peregrination stacked with his debility...and ouchies.




Some translate Ptolemy using the word alien, for peregrine. ..."Disjunct" and "alien" are the names applied to those divisions of the zodiac which have none whatever of the aforesaid familiarities with one another. These are the ones which belong neither to the class of commanding or obeying, beholding or of equal power, and furthermore they are found (p79) to be entirely without share in the four aforesaid aspects, opposition, trine, quartile, and sextile, and are either one or five signs apart; for those which are one sign apart are as it were averted from one another and, though they are two, bound the angle of one, and those that are five signs apart divide the whole circle into unequal parts, while the other aspects make an equal division of the perimeter.......They share, however, in the similarity in the same way; just as, on the contrary, when they are found in alien regions belonging to the opposite sect, a great part of their proper power is paralyzed, because the temperament which arises from the dissimilarity of the signs produces a different and adulterated nature....” http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ptolemy/Tetrabiblos/1B*.html#23 Here the word peregrine is used
http://books.google.com/books?id=D5...wAA#v=onepage&q=Tetrabiblos peregrine&f=false

I am almost following you here...


Now, Ptolemy seems to be saying that those in detriment and fall (“belonging to the opposite sect”) are similarly debilitated, but he is still making the distinction that the peregrine signs are those 1 and 6 signs distant. For sun, that would be Virgo and Capricorn, based on Leo, Taurus and Virgo, based on Aries, Pisces and Cancer, based on his sign of Detriment, Scorpio and Pisces based on the sign of his fall, where Sun is presently. Of course, Sun has dignity in fire by day and some face degrees, so would not be peregrine there. I should also mention that the programers of Kepler software, using Ptolemy's essential dignities, do not show planets peregrine that are in detriment or fall, again, because those qualities are part of the dignity scoring.

But at this point you have completely lost me. Mostly because you are comparing apples to oranges. And I'm not terribly concerned with what any software, including the couple that I use, do for dignity. I prefer to figure it out for myself, because software will still be biased based on the opinions or misunderstandings of the programmer.

I guess I can't be 100% sure unless and until I track down some of these ancient texts and translate those parts. But for now I will consider sun not peregrine in Libra and Aquarius.


I would need to spend a bit more time with the rest of what you have posted, and currently am pressed so unable to address your personal experiences...and for the record, I have a couple of planets that are peregrine and debilitated as well.

To speak to the bolded part of this statement...I personally would not consider Sun to be peregrine in Libra, because that is the "solar half." There is well documented precident for considering that the Sun in any sign from Leo to Capricorn is in his "own half," and that the Moon in signs from Aquarius to Cancer is in her "own half."

quote from Benjamin Dykes, Introductions to Astrology, pp. 59-60, originally translated from al-Quabisi

And the half of the circle which is from the beginning of Leo up to the end of Capricorn is called the "greatest half," and it is the Sun's half; because the Sun has sovereignty in this whole half just like the planets do in their own bounds. And the other half, which is from the beginning of Aquarius up to the end of Cancer, is called the "least half"; because the Moon likewise has sovereignty in this whole half, just like the Sun does in the greatest one.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
The Introduction to the Science of the Judgments of the Stars, Sahl Ibn Bishr lists 10 debilities, the 8th being, “...when a planet is in a domicile in which it has no testimony, ie no dignity, ie it is where it is not in its own domicile or in its own exaltation or in its own triplicity, etc., and when it is peregrine and already being pursued by the Sun, ie when it is before the Sun. http://books.google.com/books?id=i9g-_JFVNJcC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=peregrine&f=false

I just clicked on the link you provided. You actually miss out on several other instances provided which do support my position re peregrine planets, and are taking just this one instance to support your theory. What is also missing here is an understanding of what Saul means when he says "and when it is peregrine and already being persued by the Sun."

To which planets may the Sun apply? (because this is what is meant by "persue" here?) Only to the Superiors. What happens when the Sun applies to these planets? They set into the beams. What he is describing is a planet with no resources available about to get scorched by the Sun, who is an accidental malefic for this very reason. So, how do we mitigate this? Read the chart, and look at the condition of the peregrine planet's rulers, as well as aspects and the condition of the planets which regard.
 

AquarianEssence

Well-known member
Correct. To bring this back to astrology, and how to view peregrine planets...a peregrine planet has no rights afforded to it. This is not dissimilar to my postulation that peregrine planets have no inherent resources available to them. Going back to the wiki article you linked, those peregrini were completely at the mercy of whomever ruled the civitates peregrinae in which they dwelled. Some were good, some were not so great. Again tying this back to astrology, this is why it is said that peregrine planets are completely at the mercy of their rulers.
Agreed, to a certain extent. No one is completely without resource. They may have to work harder or depend on the kindness of another, such as a women in childbirth and rearing depends on someone else to bring in the income. The exception is if there is special circumstance, such as the one beholding the other, as 19°Aries is beholding 11°Virgo (antiscion or solstice points), where they are equal in power. (=light/dark, one sees, the other perceives, they regard each other)

Ok...why? Remember that we are trying to tie the use of the word peregrine as a description to a planet with no essential dignity, and not trying to pass judgement on what we believe to be fair. Astrology is a language, and I believe from your earlier posts that you understand that. Which is why I was so excited that you traced down the root definition, as well as the connotations given for the word.
You answered a question with a question and I don't think this has anything to do with being fair and everything to do with logic. You are asserting that Sun in Aquarius would be peregrine, without any rights, therefore his children would not be citizens and be illegitimate. So my question is, noting that Gemini is the 5th sign from Aquarius and that the sign of the twins represents Romulas and Remus, are you saying they would not be citizens of Rome? Children are a type of resource and back in the day, the throne was inherited.

Probably from Bonatti, who got it from the Persians. I can acknowledge your argument, as mine was the same. The key is in understanding that debility, as well as dignity, can stack (to quote Kai.) Why, for example, does Saturn often get to be almuten of Libra? Especially between the 1st and 6th degrees in a day chart? Because there, Saturn has dignity by exaltation, term and tripilcity. See how dignity can stack? Saturn has way more dignity in the 1st degrees of Libra than Venus, hands down.
Valentin Naboth was Lily's inspiration and guide in learning astrology. I found one of his works here, in Latin, but it would take a very long time for me to search out any reference to alien or peregrine planets. You make a good point. But, while you may be able to stack, this is only in different catagories. None can have two terms or be two faced. There are 4 that rule two signs but can never be in both at once, the same for domicile and exaltation. The exception is Mercury, who is both ruler of and exalted in Virgo. My point is, detrimient, fall and peregrine are describing being in a whole sign were their may be a small area where they have dignity by doing things on their own terms or through their own face. These essential dibilities are equivelent to the essential dignities of domicile and exaltation, with peregrine being in no place familiar at all. Remember too, Saturn, ruling Aquarius, is of the same sect as Sun, both being diurnal and masculine. So, they are not foreign to each other.

I got curious to see if my friend google had any results searching Aquarius peregrine and was surprised to find Kevin Burk, in Understanding the Birth Chart, contradicting himself. When defining peregrine, he says, "but at the same time they do not have any essential debilities either." There is a table on page 87. But then page 97, he says Aquarius Sun is both in detriment and peregrine.

You have this book? Jealolus. It's on my list.
No, I linked to a google book preview. I have some of the ancient texts that are available on line. Most are scans of Latin. It would be best to look at the originals though, rather than Latin translations.

I believe that you are misreading Saul. What sooo many ancient authors leave out, because they assume knowlegede on the part of the reader, are the specifics in every statement.
I don't believe so. Sahl is quite specific and detailed, especially saying "no testimony". If I give testimony about something I am pointing out notable details. Sahl says there are no details, no testimony what so ever. Even the definition found on this webite agrees,
A partial judgment based upon the influence of a certain planet as conditioned by Sign and House, strength of position and aspects, or of a certain configuration of planets in a Figure. The synthesis of several testimonies constitutes a judgment. The term as used by Ptolemy is approximately synonymous with Argument.

Again, correct. Ok, so I'm not a terribly religious person, but the best way I can think at the moment to explain it is...consider the story of Jesus. Because it is from the same time period as we are discussing, and applies. Jesus could be considered as peregrini, since all of Judea was under Roman rule, Isralites were peregrine, with "overseers" that came from the locals and who were looking for favor and controlling the population as per that same article you linked to.

In this analogy, Jesus is not only peregrine, but in detriment. What happened to him? We could say that his peregrination stacked with his debility...and ouchies.
That's a good example, but remember, his Sun was most likely in Pisces (unless it was Virgo, born of a virgin) and is truly peregrine no matter how you define it. So, he asks, "Elohim, Elohim, why have you forsaken me?" Elohim was mute because he was left without help, being peregrine.

But at this point you have completely lost me. Mostly because you are comparing apples to oranges. And I'm not terribly concerned with what any software, including the couple that I use, do for dignity. I prefer to figure it out for myself, because software will still be biased based on the opinions or misunderstandings of the programmer.
If you read the document I refer to you would not say it is apples and oranges and would follow what I'm saying. As for software, David Cochrane is the developer and it is at the top of the list for quality. He also assisted Matrix development, my main software when it is cooperating with my OS. Winstar has both Ptolemaic and Lilly dignity/strengths available. Ptolemy's shows those in fall detriment, also Peregrine. They have interpreted Lily, on the other hand, as giving peregrine only to those without any testimony. I have a feeling Winstar has Lily and Ptolemy reversed, but can't know unless I wade through these foreign language scanned texts.

Thanks for stretching my mind.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
Grettings,

I think Ptolemy is not a good reference to discuss about essential dignities and neither Lilly. Ptolemy believed that planets have souls and their motions are originating from themselves. For Ptolemy, the motive impules works from inside outside which is not in accordance with Aristotelian philosophy. For Aristotle, outside the sphere of the fixed stars, there was the prime mover, who imparted motion from the outside inward.

Ousia is the primary substance in Greek philosophy and it appears that Ptolemy understood this concept different from the earliest hellenistic astrologers. My suggestion would be to search a lead before Ptolemy. This debate is somehow meaningless without an astronomical foundation.
THE UNIVERSE OF ARISTOTLE
AND PTOLEMY
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html :smile:
 

AquarianEssence

Well-known member
Thank you Marius. Good point. I was thinking the same thing. A source before the common era is probably when it originated. My guess is it originated in Chaldean/Babylonian astrology. If so, I suspect the word we're looking for is pretty close to כֶּתֶר פְּרָחִים or simply פְּרָחִים which is spelled pey, resh, cheth, yod, mayim, the last 2 letters marking it as a plural. It could be moved into other languages as peregrine, with g replacing the throaty ch, since both are voiced by closing the throat to a certain extent. This Hebrew word can also mean novice, rookie or recruit, interestingly, as well as being a crown of flowers. To a novice, astrology is a foreign language, similar to a planet that is peregrine. You may wonder what a crown of flowers has to do with being a stranger or novice. Well, a flower, as sweet as it smells, is a youth, initiated until it is fertilized and becomes. An ancient way of saying a man had sex with a woman is to say he laid with her. Before that she was a flower/novice/stranger. ZR, zayin resh is similar, a crown moulding, gold overlay wrapped around. This word, too, can mean foreigner. The reason is that a foreign material is overlaid on another. So, if anyone has access to any ancient text in a Semetic language, look for the above word or one quite similar. You can find an example of the alphabet, even the older version at Wikipedia and other places.

Over at projecthindsight.com, while making the point that much of what we have through Hellenistic astrology, comes from a common source before them they say,
In fact, it is only in the details of the execution of techniques and the extension of their range of application that we find anything resembling a development of the original tradition. In the case of techniques reported by several authors, we often find differences of opinion over the fine points of procedure. But far from being evidence of innovation, such divergence of views suggests instead that the original source texts were not sufficiently explicit on many procedural matters — Vettius Valens himself frequently attests to the cryptic nature of his sources — giving later astrologers the task of fleshing out of what was merely suggested in the originals. Here again, the determination of which of these variants is a valid elaboration is not a textual matter; it requires an understanding of the conceptual issues that motivated the introduction of the technique in the first place.
 

AquarianEssence

Well-known member
I would think they would be their most natural in their own sign or that of exaltation, most unnatural when peregrine. I would never suggest Zeus could be Aphrodite, but being on her turf might show he is directing his energy in a fashion similar to hers, as if putting on her clothes, which won't likely fit well. :w00t:
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Ante-Ptolemy (astrological) sources would be Manilius, Dorotheus of Sidon and Antiochus of Athens, but cosmologically related concepts can be found in the works Pythagoras, Plato and their early followers, as well as in the Alexandrian hermetic literature prior to c. 150 AD.
 

AquarianEssence

Well-known member
Good morning all. Marius, I see you are new here. Welcome. Dr. Farr, I searched Manilius and found this: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/manilius.htmlThe first instance of peregrino can be found in Libre Primus. Peregrinus is also found in the last section. It will take some time to wade through all this, my not being fluent in Latin. I will also notice the occurrences of words like fallere, to deceive, in case it is relevant to the discussion. I believe this document was authored around 10 AD or so.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
As I have stated before, it is my understanding that the earliest Hellenists regarded the peregrine state as one devoid of any connections whatsoever, ie no essential dignity and no essential detriment. However, by Islamic transitional era times, and subsequently, it has meant simply no essential dignity (thus detriment does not save from peregrine)
Although I have long abandoned the entire concept of peregrine as an error (although as part of a whole system model it "works" in arriving at practical evaluative results when using that particular model), I think there are some important questions which could be asked-entirely within the Traditionalist model-regarding this matter:
-a planet is not peregrine if in essential dignity by domicile, exaltation, triplicity, face or term (bound): however, these were NOT the only essential divisions recognized in Hellenist and early to mid Islamic transitional times:
-in addition to faces, duodenaries (allocated to zodiacal signs) were accepted since the time of Manilius and these meet every qualification for being essential dignities (if face = decan is essential, so too would be these duodenary subdivisions)
-sign monomoiria (division of each sign into 30 degrees, each DEGREE being affinitive to a sign) was known to the Hellenists and mentioned as late as the time of Ibn Ezra ("Beginning of Wisdom") Like faces and like duodenaries, these too would be essential dignities
-Now, WHY are only domicile, exaltation, face, triplicity and term (bound) used to determine if a planet has essential dignity, and the duodenaries and monomoiria left out of the determination of whether or not a planet has any essential dignities (and thus whether or not that planet is "peregrine")?? Is it because during the transition to predominant European astrology (c late 12th/early 13th centuries) the duodenaries and monomoiria were simply dropped and soon forgotten about? Faces, like domiciles, are not accidental dignities, neither are their further divisions such as duodenary and monomoiria: why were they not included in the later dignity/debility evaluations, and in the determination of "peregrine"??
 

tsmall

Premium Member
As I have stated before, it is my understanding that the earliest Hellenists regarded the peregrine state as one devoid of any connections whatsoever, ie no essential dignity and no essential detriment. However, by Islamic transitional era times, and subsequently, it has meant simply no essential dignity (thus detriment does not save from peregrine)
Although I have long abandoned the entire concept of peregrine as an error (although as part of a whole system model it "works" in arriving at practical evaluative results when using that particular model), I think there are some important questions which could be asked-entirely within the Traditionalist model-regarding this matter:
-a planet is not peregrine if in essential dignity by domicile, exaltation, triplicity, face or term (bound): however, these were NOT the only essential divisions recognized in Hellenist and early to mid Islamic transitional times:
-in addition to faces, duodenaries (allocated to zodiacal signs) were accepted since the time of Manilius and these meet every qualification for being essential dignities (if face = decan is essential, so too would be these duodenary subdivisions)
-sign monomoiria (division of each sign into 30 degrees, each DEGREE being affinitive to a sign) was known to the Hellenists and mentioned as late as the time of Ibn Ezra ("Beginning of Wisdom") Like faces and like duodenaries, these too would be essential dignities
-Now, WHY are only domicile, exaltation, face, triplicity and term (bound) used to determine if a planet has essential dignity, and the duodenaries and monomoiria left out of the determination of whether or not a planet has any essential dignities (and thus whether or not that planet is "peregrine")?? Is it because during the transition to predominant European astrology (c late 12th/early 13th centuries) the duodenaries and monomoiria were simply dropped and soon forgotten about? Faces, like domiciles, are not accidental dignities, neither are their further divisions such as duodenary and monomoiria: why were they not included in the later dignity/debility evaluations, and in the determination of "peregrine"??

dr. farr, I completely agree, and also would wonder why the luminaries' "halves" of the chart were also dropped? It is striking that the lights have no dignity in any sign by term/bound (also striking that so much importance was given to the bound ruler in ancient texts, and yet the later astrologers regard term as being a minor dignity.) Yet at the same time we have extant that the lights are in their own bounds when the are in their familiar (domain? sect? are these places no longer important?) halves, ie as I have already mentioned Sun in the signs from Leo to Capricorn, and Moon in the signs from Aquarius to Cancer.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
Right about the LIghts: however, in both duodenary division and in both types of monomoiria (planetary and zodiacal) Sun and Moon DO have places of dignity. We find this recognition of the Lights via dignity also in Vedic astrology: the first 15 degrees of each odd sign is under the "hora" of the Sun (Sun in dignity if therein) and the last 15 degrees of each odd sign is under the "hora" of the Moon; it is reversed in even signs, ie the first 15 degrees is under the Moon and the last 15 degrees is under the Sun.
No doubt in my mind that several significant changes occured in Western astrology between the 13th and 15th centuries, from what it had been in the earlier times (Hellenist through mid/late Islamic transitional era)...
 

AquarianEssence

Well-known member
Dr. Farr, I believe you are right about the changes that took place later. It is my guess that dwads, in their original form were dropped because each planet required calculations on an individual basis, no cheat sheet allowed. It is already very time consuming to calculate the basic chart and lots. I am so grateful for modern technology.

Marius, it makes sense to me that the ancients called planets wanderers because they appeared to be stars but noticeably moved every day, unlike the fixed stars. But, at the same time, even in the centuries BC, astrologers recognized these travelers brought events according to the nature of the sign or constellation they were passing through. They would eventually determine what was the natural energy of each and recognize when they seemed to be foreign, out of place. I do agree with you that the planets in their raw form, represent ouisia, essence, potential offered. The sign they are in represents how well they can manifest their essence. They likely perform most average in their own sign and most easily, perhaps with genius, in their place of exaltation, modified by aspects, of course. Perhaps I could use my essences as an example. Several essential oils can have a chemical in common. For example, Peppermint contains 38-48% menthol, Spearmint contains about 0.5%. These are herbs of Mercury. The content of menthol is modest but effective in spearmint, safer for sensitive babies. It is elevated or exalted in the peppermint, fitting exaltation in Virgo, where you might need it for heartburn or indigestion.

I wish Lily were here so I could ask him how can a perigrini be helpless, without power to act, yet be the marker for the thief in horary. :rightful::bandit::cool:

By the way, my peregrine Saturn landholder in the IC, is testifying that I own 2 acres but it belonged to my ex husband's family for the last several generations. Yes, I do feel like a squatter in many respects but I needed to keep my children's home, for their sake. I also spent some time with no home as a child, a wanderer living out of a car, working the fruit farms as a migrant worker for part of a summer. That would probably describe my peregrine Sun in Virgo in the 2nd, although I never saw the money.

 

tsmall

Premium Member
Greetings and salutations Marius.

My point is that all the planets are peregrine or wanderers. This astrological system is geocentric having the Earth in the Center and all the planets are revolving around it. When a planet cross a masculine zoidion it is anouncing events that arise and take effect. If it happens to be a solid zoidion than it is showing a steady completion and permanent result. If all this happens in a fire like zoidion then those events are forced and necessary to occur etc. The combinations are unique.

To speak to the above, yes, all planets are wanderers, in that they were early on recognized to be different from the fixed stars which map the zodia. To be honest, I am less interested in discovering the origin of the peregrine state (though I am completely enjoying the discussion--and regret that in my ignorance I have nothing to add to it) than I am in understanding why it was given, and more importantly how to either use or discard it in interpreting charts.

I earnestly hope that I am reading what you are writing correctly, as I am not as familiar with the differening philosophies surrounding the cosmos held by the ancients as I would like to be, so please correct me if I am misunderstanding here. Are we then thinking or considering that a planet with no essential dignity (ie, not in any of its familiar places) will resort to its essential nature? Because if so, that corroborates the idea that interpretively such a planet (peregrine) will be forced to use its essence, or nature, to express itself and more importantly to control the affairs of the images it rules.

In my opinion the essence of a planet it is shown by potentiality and not actuality. This is somehow a ptolemaic point of view close related with aristotelian doctrine. The potentiality it's a matter of capability, ability, strength, power and indicate that something might have the chance to happen or not to happen or shows how something could be done well.

When we seek the potentiality of a planet we will notice that at terrestrial level is far more better to have a planet in a pivotal image above the horizon. At planetary level we will see that a planet which is direct in motion, oriental, visible in the sky and its making a phasis is far more potent than one which is not. At zodical level we will see that a planet which is in its own domicile, exaltation or confines is far more potent that one which is not. This are all essential according to their level of being but they are not the ousia or essence of that planet. This atributes are just describing the potentiality of the ousia (essence) of that planet.


For my learning purposes, what you have posted here speaks to how we ought to look at those planets which at some point in time have been defined as "peregrini." One way of looking at them, as I have mentioned elsewhere (I do not recollect at the moment where, else I would provide a link) is that they are cunning. Again going back to the definition of the word cunning, there is both a positive and a negative connotation surrounding this term.

Cunning could mean gaining one's ends by deceit, or it could mean displaying keen insight and the ability to acquire and then use special resources to achieve one's ends. This is not at odds with the description of ouisa, or the essence of the thing based on the nature of the planet, the image and place position relative to the horoscope. Delineating the planet in its entirety (including duads, 12th parts and monomoria) will give the astrologer insight as to which it will be.
 

dr. farr

Well-known member
You know, the Hellenists (except Ptolemy) in their use of dodekatemorion ramifications (which are not the same as dodekatemorion meaning sign 1/12ths, but rather a process applied to a planetary position) would delineate the dodek place (ramification) of that planet JUST AS IF IT WERE THERE AT THAT PLACE, in ADDITION to its actual position in the chart: then they would combine the indications for BOTH "positions" in coming to a final evaluation of the net actual condition or state of that planet.
Eg (using the most commonly applied Egyptian dodek method of multiplication by a factor of 12)
-say the Sun were @ 3 Aquarius: well, the Sun at that position would of course receive complete delineation
BUT ALSO
-the dodek of the Sun would be calculated: so Aquarius 3 x dodek factor of 12 = 36, minus the 30 degrees of Aquarius, so the dodek of the Sun would fall @ 6 Pisces:
-they would THEN ALSO delineate the Sun AT THE DODEK POSITION, in this case they would fully delineate the Sun @ 6 Pisces
-their NET delineation of the condition or state of the Sun would be the synthesis of both the original Sun @ 3 Aquarius AND the Sun at its dodek place of 6 Pisces.

We find references to this approach in Paulus Alexandrianus and some examples given in "Greek Horoscopes". However, by the time of the earliest Islamic transitional era authors, the method had been abandoned, and to my knowledge none of the current Traditionalist or neo-Hellenist authors (or leaders) have engaged in this method, nor have used it in coming to a dignity/detriment evaluative determination regarding planets in a chart-but it was characteristic of NON-PTOLEMAIC Hellenist delineative practice, now long forgotten...
 
Top