Is this right?? 7 peregrine planets and a fixed T-square in my chart?

MJ82

Well-known member
:sad:

I had an email reading done many months back (and I must say it was the most negative and unhelpful reading I have ever had done - so I feel a bit silly for even going back to it), but I did notice two things I never had before:

According to the reading, I have 7 peregrine planets. Is this right...?

Sun Pisces
Moon Libra
Mercury Aquarius
Venus Aquarius
Jupiter Scorpio
Uranus Sagittarius
Neptune Sagittarius

And, the astrologer also mentioned a fixed T-square, which he explained like this:

Asc Aquarius 1st Square Jupiter Scorpio 9th Opposition Chiron Taurus 3rd Square Asc Aquarius 1st

Apex Point – Ascendant (1st house) Aquarius
Focal Point – Descendant (7th house) Leo

The Apex Planet's sign will guide the individual based on the Focal Point’s sign, which is

Taurus => worth of self and mastery
Leo => worth of creativity and spirit
Scorpio => worth through vulnerability and trust
Aquarius => worth through humanity and brotherhood

This is a completely new dimension to my chart, and has me slightly concerned (or at least eager to understand it better) so I would be very grateful for some insight! Thank you.
 

MJ82

Well-known member
And how can my Moon for instance be peregrine, when it has major aspects to it? I'm a little confused now..
 

Peregrine_Moon

Well-known member
There are two different definitions of "peregrine" in use. The classic definition applies to a planet resident in a sign and house where it has no rulership, exaltation or detriment. It's just there. It can aspect other planets, too.

Some modern astrologers use "peregrine" to refer to planets that form no major aspects to any other planet--no conjunctions, sextiles, squares, trines or oppositions. Such planets are basically singletons and threaten to function independently of the rest of the chart.

Many wonderful astrologers say that it's impossible for a planet not to form aspects to others, that there's always something there, and so no planet can be isolated or completely separate from everything else. I think they're correct.

In my view, though, to have a planet that's unaspected by others and not in a sign or house it rules does give it a singular presence. Sometimes, that's not a big problem. My own Moon is like this. But sometimes it's an enormous difficulty. I know someone who has a "peregrine island" made up of his Sun and Mercury, at 0° Libra, separated by only a few minutes. Neither of them aspects anything else in the chart. This man has, in effect, an unbounded ego. He has difficulty with realistic self-awareness or genuine understanding of others. Everything is about him, one way or another. His unlimited Sun-Mercury combination seems to make it impossible for him to really see others. He also doesn't seem to have a means for processing the information that other planets provide because he's literally not in touch with them directly. Transits affect him, of course, but it's much more difficult for him to understand such influences. In many ways, his peregrine island gives him a sort of sociopathic quality except that there's nothing malignant about him. He's inconsiderate, sometimes simply ignorant, but he's not manipulative.

Others have written about peregrine planets, in particular Dr. Farr. I suggest you have a look through the archives--there's a lot of wisdom to be found.
 

MJ82

Well-known member
Thanks very much Peregrine_Moon, that's very informative. I will definitely look round the forums.

What I don't understand is that the planets he mentioned in my chart all have major aspects, but perhaps he was going by the other definition.

In your view, would you agree that these are peregrine? And would having so many in a chart be problematic? I have read tings about people who have many of these as living in an unfocused way in life, which is not so true for me, but in so far as practical steps toward moving ahead in my life, yes I struggle. But then my sun is in Pisces :wink:
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
MJ82 dr.farr made some useful comment on this issue on a number of threads on this forum including for example at :smile: http://www.astrologyweekly.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51796
I would like to add that in earlier astrology the peregrine concept meant that a planet had neither + NOR - essential dignities in its place; later (around the late 12th/early 13th centuries AD) this concept changed, so that for the past 800 years peregrine means no + essential dignities, but the planet can have essential debilities and still be considered peregrine (the doctrine states "detriment does not save from peregrine"); so in my opinion the meaning of peregrine changed, from a planet simply being a wanderer with no + or - connections (no essential dignities OR debilities) to a planet with no essential + connections (no essential dignities) but which COULD have essential detriments (essential debilities)-therefore, with this concept, I can see why Traditionalists would generally consider a peregrine planet "worse off" than detrimented-there are at least connections with a detrimented planet, with this peregrine concept there are either no connections at all, or if there are any, these would be detrimented/debilitating in nature.

...however, as I have stated earlier, I do not accept (for me at least) the current (past 800 years!) peregrine concept, as valid..
.
....I recall reading that the earlier (Greek) astrologers didn't have detriment (or peregrine) as part of their consideration, and that it was a later "invention" in horoscopic astrology. dr. farr, perhaps you would know if this is the case?

In my (early learning and so likely to be proved incorrect) opinion, one concern or issue with trying to learn traditional methods is that we tend to want to conflate them with modern/psychological ideas. Which means that we fall into the trap of equating dignity/debility in the chart with how those planets are expressed in the native's character and personality, his/her psychology, when the real use of these was to determine a planet's ablility to operate or act over the areas of life they rule.
 

gen6k

Well-known member
it gets messy when double rulers of planets are introduced. then a planet can have "two faces" when it is both connected via essential dignitity and not or to a lesser extent.
maybe its possible to look at the quality of the sign for other answers. maybe one can make the concept of Minor and Major peregrine to bridge the systems.

your sun is definetly peregrine

Leo can be inconjunt Pisces
pisces is not the opposite polarity (aquarius)
it takes it a step forward towards dissolution

thats your strongest peregrine

the moon is square libra from cancer
the moon has some qualities of Libra its not for example an Aries or Capricorn moon.
it is the minor square not the major square.


uranus is actually sextile sagittarius by domicile

neptune's ruler pisces is exalted in jupiter

Jupiter in scorpio is another really skewed placement it is
right next to Sagittarius yet has many sideways-opposite qualities
(it can even be called the second detriment unless original ruler is placed (pisces)

so Sun/Jupiter are the most peregrine

Sun - Pisces - Major via inconjunct
Jupiter - Scorpio - Major via semi-square
Moon - Libra - Medium via minor square
Venus - Aquarius - Medium via trine/square
Neptune Or Uranus - Sagittarius - Weak via exhalt/sextile
Mercury - Aquarius - Weak - via trine

around that order for a peregrine scale

Mercury is exhalted in aquarius via Trine

Venus is hard to say if its the minor or major square or if its Trine...via Libra or Taurus
(what is more venusian leo or aquarius)

one would also have to make the claim of major or minor domicile to get the order correct.
we also have to make the jump to say if its not connected via quality is it too "fallish" or "peregrinish" or "too exaltedish" then we have to say what is further away from peregine towards quality or away from quality towards the fall. then if it is towards fall isnt it secondary essential not peregrine.
well if the "square" is also exhalted in the double ruler then it is "exhaltedish" which is also towards essential, but not the detrimental square. so it could be peregrine moreso than fall. the conflict and answer are both in the "quality".
another thing is what is less peregrine the measurement of quality or strength of aspect. for example a sextile/exhaltation is stronger via aspect than Trine, but the sign's qualities also can have higher octave. the action of triplicity includes somewhat of each planetary energy, but less of their structural bounds. its really that the differentiation and unfolding of the zodiac is not equil-lateral in some ways.
it also represents a deep fundamental truth. a system by nature stands on the same parameters, but homeostasis in a system produces nothing. well all systems are by nature asymmetrical at its action-points in order to induce a structure flow. well getting to the shape of the asymmetry is at a different level than its staticness, and its reconciliation towards re-unifying itself is another place.

what you dont have with that list is domicile placements, but you also dont have detriment placements. some of them are minor essential.
 
Last edited:

MJ82

Well-known member
Thank you gen6k,

Can I ask, re my "peregrine" sun, would a parallel by declination (to mars in my case), and which I have read acts like a conjunction, mean that my sun is actually not peregrine?

I'm still a little lost re the definition of peregrination, because my sun is also in a major aspect (square) to neptune for instance... what I have read is that many attribute the word peregrine to a planet that has no major aspects... so what definition are you going by?

People seem to have very different opinions on what actually makes a planet peregrine!

Thanks for taking the time to explain this!
 

tsmall

Premium Member
I haven't ever seen peregrine defined by aspects either. It makes me wonder what peregrine in that case means.

Traditionally, a peregrine planet was a "wanderer," a stranger in a strange land. So it is a planet that has no dignity where it is. Most traditional astrologers seem to only consider dignity for this by rulership, exaltation, triplicity, term (bounds) and face (decan.) Peregrine planets are supposed to then be wholly dependent on their rulers (all of them) for the resources they need to see to the matters of the houses they in turn rule. The general consensus appears to be that a planet can be both debilitated (in fall or detriment) and also peregrine. This idea of peregrine also puts the lights at a serious disadvantage because they get domicile rulership of one sign each (the other five traditional planets get two) and they are not assigned terms. Having the Sun and Moon so often be peregrine in natal charts, when they are the power centers, makes no sense to me.

At any rate, the idea is that if a planet is found to be peregrine, it is very important to consider the condition of the planets whose domicile, exaltation, etc. it falls in because you want those rulers to be in good position to support the planet so that it can affect it's own significations.

In your chart, the Sun, Mars and Jupiter would be considered peregrine.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
I'm still a little lost re the definition of peregrination, because my sun is also in a major aspect (square) to neptune for instance... what I have read is that many attribute the word peregrine to a planet that has no major aspects... so what definition are you going by?

People seem to have very different opinions on what actually makes a planet peregrine!

Thanks for taking the time to explain this!
As dr. farr explains on the quote I posted, 'Peregrine' is one of the traditional debilities of a planet and is well over a thousand years old in origin HOWEVER as dr. farr says, for the past 800 years the idea of 'Peregrine' has changed from its original meaning.

Essential Dignity and Debility is a balanced traditional astrological concept within which any outer planets beyond Saturn can only 'be forcibly included' - thereby totally de-stabilizing - and hence making a nonsense of the original foundation or basis of the table of Essential Dignity and Debility. For that reason, so far as the Table of Essential Dignity and Debility is concerned - even if it were a valid consideration re: Peregrinity versus non-Peregrinity - a square to any outer planet beyond Saturn could not save, in this particular case, the Sun from being considered as 'making no major aspects' in terms of Essential Dignity and Debility.

as tsmall has said:

I haven't ever seen peregrine defined by aspects either. It makes me wonder what peregrine in that case meant
Traditionally, a peregrine planet was a "wanderer," a stranger in a strange land. So it is a planet that has no dignity where it is. Most traditional astrologers seem to only consider dignity for this by rulership, exaltation, triplicity, term (bounds) and face (decan.) Peregrine planets are supposed to then be wholly dependent on their rulers (all of them) for the resources they need to see to the matters of the houses they in turn rule. The general consensus appears to be that a planet can be both debilitated (in fall or detriment) and also peregrine. This idea of peregrine also puts the lights at a serious disadvantage because they get domicile rulership of one sign each (the other five traditional planets get two) and they are not assigned terms. Having the Sun and Moon so often be peregrine in natal charts, when they are the power centers, makes no sense to me.

as dr. farr stated, 'peregrine' originally meant a planet simply being a wanderer i.e. with no + or - connections i.e. NEITHER essential dignities NOR debilities
However, as tsmall advises - there is a 'way out' for 'peregrine planets'!:smile:
At any rate, the idea is that if a planet is found to be peregrine, it is very important to consider the condition of the planets whose domicile, exaltation, etc. it falls in because you want those rulers to be in good position to support the planet so that it can affect it's own significations.


useful link to table of Essential Dignity and Debility that is currently in use by astrologers today
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html also attached is the same table of Essential Dignity and Debility with the exaltation, domicile, fall and detriment emphasised by shading

Notice that the newly discovered outer planets are invisible on that table – that's because without the use of powerful telescopes - which were invented only recently - the outer planets are not visible.
 

Attachments

  • Essential Dignities Lilly.jpg
    Essential Dignities Lilly.jpg
    82.8 KB · Views: 22
Last edited:

tsmall

Premium Member
There is one term in the traditional that could be being replaced with "peregrine" in this definition that does give consideration to an unaspected planet. A planet is considered "feral" or empty of course when it makes no aspects to any other planet for the entire time it is in a sign. This would be either out of sign aspects by degree, or Ptolemaic aspects by sign.

As usual there is disagreement, in this case about whether this could actually happen to any planet other than the Moon, and also as to what it signifies in natal charts. Morin said that feral planets "act simply and according to their own nature," and that they will "often indicate something unusual, for good or ill, depending on the nature of the planet."
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
MJ82 further to tsmall's useful comment regarding the necessity for rulers of peregrine planets to preferably be in good condition in order to support the Peregrine planets occupying their domicile, if you look at Pisces on Ptolemy's Table of Essential Dignity notice that your Jupiter-ruled Pisces sun is in the face of Jupiter and Trine Jupiter, thus is received by Jupiter

Fortunately, your natal Jupiter does in fact appear to have ONE essential dignity by being in own Terms – you can check on the table of Essential Dignities for Scorpio - therefore your natal Jupiter is not peregrine and can therefore provide at least some support for your peregrine Sun :smile:
 

MJ82

Well-known member
MJ82 further to tsmall's useful comment regarding the necessity for rulers of peregrine planets to preferably be in good condition in order to support the Peregrine planets occupying their domicile, if you look at Pisces on Ptolemy's Table of Essential Dignity notice that your Jupiter-ruled Pisces sun is in the face of Jupiter and Trine Jupiter, thus is received by Jupiter

Fortunately, your natal Jupiter does in fact appear to have ONE essential dignity by being in own Terms – you can check on the table of Essential Dignities for Scorpio - therefore your natal Jupiter is not peregrine and can therefore provide at least some support for your peregrine Sun :smile:

Thank you all for your replies, I'm still trying to wrap my head around this.

JupiterASC, I didn't think my sun made an aspect to jupiter in my chart, or are you saying that because my sun is in pisces and jupiter the traditional ruler that it supports it naturally? I don't fully understand what you meant by "in the face of" or where this "trine" is that you mention. I think I am missing something and this is astrology one level up from what I know :innocent:
 

MJ82

Well-known member
Ah, are you talking about aspect relationships by sign and not degree re: sun and jupiter? I'm such a noob :lol:

What I don't understand is what having a peregrine planet in major aspects to other planets in my chart means. Are we taking peregrine to mean with no dignity whatsoever even if it has major aspects?

The other question I had was what would the influence of an interception on my peregrine Pisces sun mean?

Here is an interesting discussion on the subject that I found useful: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081110195213AAYZCx6

and here: http://chirotic.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/alan-watts-peregrination-and-the-uranus-principle/
 
Last edited:

Peregrine_Moon

Well-known member
I don't read either your Sun or Jupiter as peregrine because each of them forms a major aspect. Your Sun is square Neptune. Jupiter is square Venus. True, neither of them is exalted, in detriment or in fall in the sign in which it resides, and so to that extent, they are peregrine. As I've explained, above, I think that the most meaningful kind of peregrination pertains to planets that form no significant aspects because they don't relate to anything else in the chart; there's nothing to influence the way they function or if they operate at all.

The subject of intercepted signs is also controversial! :smile: A great many astrologers say that an intercepted sign has difficulty functioning except at the pleasure of the house ruler, which is usually difficult to obtain because signs that are adjacent to each other have little affinity. In this view, a planet in an intercepted sign is significantly weaker than it would be if the sign were not weakened.

Others point out that interception is the product of the house system one uses. Placidus and several others, for example, frequently create intercepted houses in significantly northern or southern latitudes. However, interception is impossible in both the equal house and whole sign systems.

I generally go with what works. I live in Canada and usually study Canadians' charts which often include intercepted signs. My own daughter's first house in the Placidus system is 53° wide. She's young--not quite 25 years old. I think that using equal houses is a better fit for her, but it's something I consider whenever I look at her chart. My principal concern relates to transits of the houses that are either enormous or very narrow because of the distortion.
 

tsmall

Premium Member
MJ82,

I got to thinking more about this yesterday, so I read the links you gave and found another one.

http://hniizato.com/2011/10/interpr...l-tyls-definition-of-a-peregrine-planet/.html

It looks like Noel Tyl wrote about unaspected planets and is the one who conscripted an astrological term, already in use (peregrine) and gave it a new definition. What he writes about used to be, and still is traditionally, called feral or wild planets. What Peregrine Moon wrote about the person she knew who had Mercury cazimi and making no other aspects would fall better into the second definition of peregrine.

I spent a good deal of time exploring the topic of unaspected planets and what they might mean traditionally last spring, because one of my daughters does have an unaspected Sun.

So, traditional until about 20 years ago definition of peregrine means a planet with no essential dignity where it is, and Noel Tyl's redefinition of the word to mean a planet with no major aspect.

In the case of the second, unaspected definition, I agree with Peregrine Moon. None of your planets look peregrine that way.

The first, original definition of peregrine as a planet lacking essential dignity is what I think JUPITERASC is referring to here. That has nothing to do with the aspects at all, and only refers to rulership. Jupiter is the traditional ruler of Pisces, so Jupiter is the (traditional) ruler of your Sun. Jupiter is in the domicile of Mars, the triplicity of Mars because Mars according to Ptolemy rules the water signs by day and night, the terms of Jupiter (again according to Ptolemy) and the face of Mars.

Domicile and exaltation are pretty familiar to most students. Face or decans/decanates is also pretty familiar as the three subdivisions of each sign. Terms are just a further subdivision of the signs giving another dimension of rulership to each sign. There is an excellent tutorial at skyscript about the essential dignities here

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dignities.html

Jupiter does make a trine aspect by sign to your Sun, and keeping in mind that again the peregrine state was used not to describe how the Sun would manifest in your personality but rather how the Sun would be able to rule/actually affect the matters of Leo that it rules, what this means is that the Sun is homeless/without resources of its own, and so needs to get those from somewhere. Jupiter is the Sun's ruler, and Jupiter does have some resources because he is in his own terms. That Jupiter makes a trine (by sign) to the Sun means that not only does he have resources to share, he actually can do so because he can "see" the Sun.
 

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
JupiterASC, I didn't think my sun made an aspect to jupiter in my chart, or are you saying that because my sun is in pisces and jupiter the traditional ruler that it supports it naturally? I don't fully understand what you meant by "in the face of" or where this "trine" is that you mention. I think I am missing something and this is astrology one level up from what I know :innocent:
Hi MJ82. The essential dignities are:

(1) Domicile
i.e. a planet in own sign OR in mutual reception with another planet by sign

(2) Exaltation i.e. in exaltation OR in mutual reception by exaltation


(3) Triplicity

(4) Term

(5) Face


Therefore, 'in the face of' means that a planet is essentially dignified because of being located 'in the essential dignity face of' another planet
:smile:
Ah, are you talking about aspect relationships by sign and not degree re: sun and jupiter? I'm such a noob :lol:
Exactly - planets make aspects by sign as well as degree and as tsmall then commented:
Jupiter does make a trine aspect by sign to your Sun,
What I don't understand is what having a peregrine planet in major aspects to other planets in my chart means. Are we taking peregrine to mean with no dignity whatsoever even if it has major aspects?
fwiw IMO 'peregrine' means a planet with no essential dignity even if it has major aspects BECAUSE mutual reception by sign and/or exaltation is an essential dignity dependent upon aspect
MJ82,
I got to thinking more about this yesterday, so I read the links you gave and found another one.

http://hniizato.com/2011/10/interpr...l-tyls-definition-of-a-peregrine-planet/.html

It looks like Noel Tyl wrote about unaspected planets and is the one who conscripted an astrological term, already in use (peregrine) and gave it a new definition.

What he writes about used to be, and still is traditionally, called feral or wild planets.

What Peregrine Moon wrote about the person she knew who had Mercury cazimi and making no other aspects would fall better into the second definition of peregrine.


I spent a good deal of time exploring the topic of unaspected planets and what they might mean traditionally last spring, because one of my daughters does have an unaspected Sun.

So, traditional until about 20 years ago definition of peregrine means a planet with no essential dignity where it is, and Noel Tyl's redefinition of the word to mean a planet with no major aspect.

In the case of the second, unaspected definition, I agree with Peregrine Moon. None of your planets look peregrine that way.
tsmall, thanks for clarifying the peregrine versus feral definition issue. I would agree that:

(1) 'peregrine' simply meant - and still means for nearly two thousand years now - a planet with no essential dignity
where it is

(2) that relatively recently, Noel Tyl gave 'feral planets' a makeover by re-christening planets previously regarded as 'feral' as instead 'peregrine'

.....thus popularising a notion that 'peregrine' included unaspected planets.

(3) Traditionally, anaspected planets are 'feral' RATHER THAN Peregrine
The first, original definition of peregrine as a planet lacking essential dignity is what I think JUPITERASC is referring to here
Exactly - I meant the original definition of peregrine as meaning simply a planet lacking essential dignity where it is located :smile:
...That has nothing to do with the aspects at all, and only refers to rulership.

Jupiter is the traditional ruler of Pisces, so Jupiter is the (traditional) ruler of your Sun. Jupiter is in the domicile of Mars, the triplicity of Mars because Mars according to Ptolemy rules the water signs by day and night, the terms of Jupiter (again according to Ptolemy) and the face of Mars.

Domicile and exaltation are pretty familiar to most students. Face or decans/decanates is also pretty familiar as the three subdivisions of each sign.Terms are just a fur ther subdivision of the signs giving another dimension of rulership to each sign. There is an excellent tutorial at skyscript about the essential dignities here
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dignities.html
Jupiter does make a trine aspect by sign to your Sun, and keeping in mind that again the peregrine state was used not to describe how the Sun would manifest in your personality but rather how the Sun would be able to rule/actually affect the matters of Leo that it rules, what this means is that the Sun is homeless/without resources of its own, and so needs to get those from somewhere. Jupiter is the Sun's ruler, and Jupiter does have some resources because he is in his own terms.

That Jupiter makes a trine (by sign) to the Sun means that not only does he have resources to share, he actually can do so because he can "see" the Sun
.
Thanks for that great explanation tsmall - there's more info at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig3.html where the following 100 word descriptive extract of the meaning of a planet in its own terms is sourced from:

QUOTE:

A planet in its own terms is recognized as being in a situation of temporary strength, even though it may not otherwise be suited to the sign it occupies. e.g. Saturn is in detriment in Leo, BUT in the first 6 degrees is in its own terms so this overall condition of weakness is somewhat alleviated. Ezra calls such a planet: "like a man in his seat". We could compare the situation to someone renting or owning a holiday villa abroad. The country may be generally unfamiliar but there is a sense of security when surrounded by one's own possessions

SO MJ82 traditionally, your natal peregrine Sun's trine by sign aspect with your natal Jupiter allows your natal Jupiter to offer/provide support to your homeless, rootless, hence for that reason lacking resources Sun :smile:
 

greybeard

Well-known member
A peregrine planet is one which is without essential dignity.

In other words, the planet is not in his own sign or sign of exaltation, not in his terms, triplicity or face. If a planet holds none of these dignities, he is peregrine. The planet is without dignity. He is "peregrine", that is, a stranger in a strange land, a wanderer, a foreigner, without standing, alien. Note that triplicity here refers to sect and not the modern rulerships of triplicities.

Peregrine planets can behold aspects. Aspects have nothing to do with the condition of being peregrine.

Lilly and others considered peregrine planets to be very malicious, especially in horary charts, but also in natal charts. They create mischief, cause trouble. They are hobos, gypsies, street people. They don't belong where they are found, are out of place.

If the lord of the peregrine planet is well conditioned, the adverse effects of the peregrine are lessened, although they will still be a bother at times. Peregrine planets are said (according to chart context) to be untrustworthy, devious, misleading, treacherous and so on.

"Hark, hark, the dogs do bark,
The beggars are coming to town."
 
Last edited:

JUPITERASC

Well-known member
A peregrine planet is one which is without essential dignity.

In other words, the planet is not in his own sign or sign of exaltation, not in his terms, triplicity or face. If a planet holds none of these dignities, he is peregrine. The planet is without dignity. He is "peregrine", that is, a stranger in a strange land, a wanderer, a foreigner, without standing, alien. Note that triplicity here refers to sect and not the modern rulerships of triplicities.

Peregrine planets can behold aspects. Aspects have nothing to do with the condition of being peregrine.

Lilly and others considered peregrine planets to be very malicious, especially in horary charts, but also in natal charts. They create mischief, cause trouble. They are hobos, gypsies, street people. They don't belong where they are found, are out of place.

If the lord of the peregrine planet is well conditioned, the adverse effects of the peregrine are lessened, although they will still be a bother at times. Peregrine planets are said (according to chart context) to be untrustworthy, devious, misleading, treacherous and so on.

"Hark, hark, the dogs do bark,
The beggars are coming to town."
Great succinct synopsis - thank you graybeard.

A Peregrine planet conjunct by sign with any Exalted planet has a kind of 'pushing dignity' 'pushed to it' by the Exalted planet however that kind of dignity, although it may ameliorate the peregrine planets condition does not save it from its peregrine state. Similarly when a peregrine planet is conjunct - but not in any form of reception with - a planet in its own domicile, then 'dignity is pushed to it' by the dignified planet. Using your analogy, perhaps a homeless vagabond is taken care of by a benefactor :smile:
 
My chart is similar in that I have three planets that are in their faces, and no planets in rulership, exaltation, debility, or fall. I was told that these could be referred to as "feral" planets, also, but of course there is disagreement.
 
Top