Peregrination: the Movie.

Among the greatest misconceptions in astrology is the exaltation of rules above principles, because it is all too easy to forget that the rules are derived from observed principles, not the other way around. The astrologer that comprehends the principle that underpins the rule is then able to discard the rule-bound logic of the mind, and enter into a dialogue with the illimitable.

I talk a great deal about peregrination, and I receive emails on that subject telling me that I have misunderstood the rule of peregrination completely, with perhaps some explanatory text concerning Ptolemy and his great treatise. There are of course peregrine degrees in the zodiac but broadly, peregrination is used traditionally to denote a state of essential debility. I use the term essential in its truest sense, to express a profound, integral quality; thus the essential debility of Saturn in Aries is based upon the fact that natives with this placement struggle at a fundamental level to promote self-reliance, independence and courage in their lives, most especially in the affairs of that house where it is placed.

Technically the definition of Peregrine degrees is derived from Lilly:

A Planet is then said to be Peregrine, when he is in the degrees of any Sign wherein he hath no essential dignity, As Saturn in the tenth degree of Aries, that Sign being not his House, Exaltation, or of his Triplicity, or he having in that degree neither Term or Face, he is then said to be Peregrine; had he been in 27, 28, &c. of Aries, he could not be termed Peregrine, because then he is in his own Term. (Lilly, CA, p.112).

Thus peregrination of Saturn at about 9 degrees of Aries is so utterly undignified that it really has no power to express itself. Now here is the nub, because it is not the degree that is important, but the experiential, subjective result of that placement: thus the key observation is not that this or that degree is the purpose of this rule, but that the inability to express that planet’s energy is.

Now if we go back to first principles, if we force a child to wear lead boots (or callipers even) for its entire childhood there is little doubt that the unfortunate is going to struggle. He or she will not be able to run as fast as the other children, he or she will probably be considered slow, ungainly and will thus be less-favoured by their peers and by the world in general. There is every possibility then that this child will at some level develop a deep insecurity about their abilities, and may go throught their entire life feeling like something of a failure and never achieving much.

This is the exact principle behind the rule of planetary debility, but of course in this case the lead boots are actually irrelevant, it is the effect of those lead boots that we should be concerned with. Now imagine that this child rails against their status as the weakling and decides to try and run as fast as the other children despite his or her lead boots, what does this posit? There is a chance (and whilst it may be a small chance it is a chance nonetheless) that the child’s legs will grow strong, far stronger than they would otherwise be, and so they find that one bright morning they can keep up with the other children with their lead boots on! Now we find that this child – as a direct result of this ‘debility’ – has managed to grow comparatively much stronger than those not so debilitated by lead boots.

This then is the principle that underpins the idea of peregrination and it is a very simple and acceptable principle too: through adversity, people grow stronger.

Now, let us broaden that principle, not the rule! Only the principle. If peregrination is nothing more than a pair of lead boots then any other style of lead boot is going to have the exact same effect. It doesn’t actually matter if our lead boots are winkle-pickers or if they are lead-slippers! Thus, if a planet is unaspected, by dint of the difficulty that the native experiences in expressing that energy due to its non-integration with his broader nativity, there will be some requirement to work especially hard with that debility.

Peregrine is derived from a word meaning, outcast, foreigner, it describes a wanderer far from home, a feral power, behind enemy lines that – if it is to survive – must often develop unique and ingenious methods or otherwise continue to suffer the taunts and rejection of their peers for being so hopelessly slow and deficient. It does not matter how that planet is thus peregrinated. It might be by being placed in no sympathetic context through house, exaltation or triplicity, or it might equally be through being unaspected, a singleton, at the apex of a Yod and tee-square at the same time, or any other of a number of peregrinating factors that force the soul within to evolve or be crushed by the burden.

In this way, it is important to see how we must, as astrologers, not simply sit and bemoan all of those lead boots that our clients are forced to wear, but instead we must marvel at the opportunity they have to develop such awesomely powerful legs!

Consider some examples: what do Pamela Anderson and Cat Stevens have in common? They both have Sun, Moon, Mercury and Venus in peregrine (traditional, by Lilly). What do the Queen and Tom Hanks share in common? Both Moon and Mercury are peregrine (by lack of aspect). All four of these people have a real debility where their Moon and Mercury placements are concerned, they have lead boots on their emotional, self nurturing and self-expressive faculties. Now consider Tom Hanks and Pamela Anderson; which of these two has developed the “stronger legs” when it comes to matters of emotional expression? Unaspected peregrination is arguably more debilitating than the traditional even, them there lead boots sure is heavy.

If you enjoyed this post, consider supporting Chirotic Journal, and get access to exclusive content.
Become a patron at Patreon!

3 thoughts on “Peregrination: the Movie.

Add yours

  1. Very interesting! I was juat about to ask you for a very specific definition of peregrination as you were using the term in your research. And here it is! Great!

    So, for my own double clarification, and by the definition you use, a planet in a sign will meet the criteria for peregrination assuming that it is either unaspected, or when it lacks essential dignity, or both.

    Also that means that a planet in a sign would still qualify for peregrination if it is, say, exalted or in its own sign, so long as it is unaspected (and, by unaspected you are speaking of the major aspects only, conjunction, square, opposition and sextile, is that correct)?

    Likewise, a planet would still qualify for peregrination if it is debilitated even though it is in a major aspect, even favorable, to another planet in the chart? How about a planet in fall, or opposite to it’s own house, say, like Saturn in Cancer? If that planet happens to be aspected, (even favorably aspected) would it still count as peregrine?

    I really enjoy how you go about this process of isolating and purifying the energy of a planet in a sign using that process for further examination and illumination of the astro-energetic configuration of planet in sign. This is a very interesting approach, and I like your theory re: a peregrine planet (or luminary) in sign “will force the soul within to evolve or be crushed by the burden.”

    Might you be willing to address how it is that cazami fits in to the picure? I believe that you implied that that when a planet in a sign is both peregrine and cazami, it will make the energy even easier to isolate and examine.

    Also, I was wondering if you would and/or plan to incorporate the nodes of the moon somehow in this theory. Many thanks!

  2. You have it exactly.
    I determine unaspected to be any planet that does not form a Ptolemaic aspect (co/op/tr/sq/se) to any other planet (Su through Pl). I use orbs of 6 for conjunct, 5 for trine and square and 4 for sextile. It is very quickly obvious which planets are peregrine through lack of aspect. An unaspected planet that is in its domicile has the potential then to run away with the whole of the chart because once the native learns to express it, it is awesomely powerful.

    A planet that is doubly peregrine (unaspected, debilitated) can also run away with the entire chart, but for the worse (Nick Drake’s Moon in Scorpio for example).

    I find it fascinating, usually a planet peregrine by aspect but dignified by placement can be a huge factor; I often see those with unaspected Moon in Cancer or Taurus to be completely dissociated in the same way that Nick Drake was, but quite happy with it – in a world of their own.

    The term peregrine is quite broad; usually some judgement is required, but the trick is to apply the principle rather than the rule; Ptolemy considered that an essential dignity score of minus 5 was enough to qualify for peregrination, but in opractise you can recognise the principle of peregrination under all sorts of conditions.

    The example you suggest of Saturn in Cancer might have something of a peregrine quality although good aspects may make him more comfortable there even in his detriment; I would say that mutual receptions especially alleviate the ill effects of peregrination. Thus Saturn in Aries will be much moderated by Sun in Libra (reception by exaltation) and this is borne out: I wrote an article on this exact case a week or so ago if you are interested.

    Will Smith has a double peregrine Moon (unaspected in Scorpio, thus fall) the same as Nick Drake (and myself). If you have ever seen him in interview you will be able to observe the dissociation complex. I have a theory though that midpoints and quintiles hold the potential to fix a peregrine Moon dissociative disorder.

    Saturn in Cancer with no alleviating factors though would definitely be peregrine. Any planetary energy which we struggle to express really qualifies.

    Peregrine Cazimi placements are completely pure expressions of that energy. Annie Lennox is an example of Capricorn as she has a Moon in Cap. too that is also peregrine, astonishing.

    Liz Taylor’s chart is interesting; she has Cazimi Mercury opposing Neptune in Virgo, thus Me/Ne are in reception; even though these planets are not technically unaspected they contain a very compelling arrangement that really makes the rest of her chart nearly irrelevant to all intents and purposes.

    Ed Moses, who was an unparalleled performer in the high hurdles has Cazimi Venus as a peregrine island with Mars in Virgo, in the 6th there is a real story of Virgo on Virgo (sign & house) thus incredible efficiency and absolute dynamic perfection; it is a real benchmark for Virgo.

    If a Cazimi placement is Peregrine, then there is every chance that those blended energies (like Moses’ blend of Sun, Venus and Mars in Virgo) will define the entire life.

    I read somebody’s interpretation of Jimi Hendrix the other day and though they are a respected astrologer, they failed to note the peregrine Mars in Scorpio in the 11th. This gives incredible penetrative power, indomitable energy and a real force that demands the adulation of the world. Other factors contributed to his style, but this more than anything explains his incredible electric energy (think unparalleled power expressed in an Aquarian manner! That *is* Hendrix!)

    Your Nodes question is intriguing too. Denzel Washington has Cazimi NN in Capricorn, this in a peregrine island conjunction with Mercury (think of that taciturn control and poise and gravitas!) and a peregrine Moon in Aquarius too! His chart is quite remarkable.

    I fully intend to write an article on Denzel very soon 🙂

  3. Thank you very much for the answers and all of the additional information! I have a whole lot of fun new research ahead of me now!

Leave a Reply

Powered by

Up ↑