I?m snipping the opening remarks from the thread ?Did the client lie to me?, to start a discussion that is more specific to the question of whether ?essential dignity? signifies moral integrity.

Julie wrote:

I did find the following excerpt that seems to confirm that highly dignified planets (such as Jupiter in Pisces in the 10th in this case) and thieves/strays (liars) aren't mutually exclusive:

Gadbury: OF THEFTS, FUGITIVES, AND STRAYS, &c., Doctrine of Horary Questions, Chapter 9, part 3.

"Let the planet afflicting the substance, or part of Fortune, or their Lords, be Peregrine, or essentially dignified, he shall signifie the Thief. And whereas some exempt a Planet essentially dignified, from participating in any thing of this nature, I do not; for such a planet, as he is strong, he is able to do the most mischief."

And the footnote: "Gadbury... clearly doesn't use essential dignity as a symbol of moral fortitude, honour or personal integrity; only as a symbol of effectiveness and power..."

As the person who wrote that footnote I?d like to add a bit more about my understanding and experience of this. The extract from Gadbury?s text is published at www.skyscript.co.uk/gadtext.html and the full footnote reads:

Gadbury therefore primarily takes signification of the thief from the planet which afflicts the significator of the goods. Lacking a suitably 'afflicting' planet, he defaults to the ruler of the 7th house regardless of whether it is essentially dignified or peregrine. He clearly doesn't use essential dignity as a symbol of moral fortitude, honour or personal integrity; only as a symbol of effectiveness and power which expresses itself through status and professional standing.

I don?t think Gadbury had a lot of experience in this matter and he admits to omitting a lot of relevant details. But it you look at his comments you can see that he is mainly interested in ?the planet afflicting the substance?. Ideally, we are considering the effect of an essentially dignified planet within the context of that planet being symbolically described as responsible for the trouble. One of the pertinent facts that Gadbury omits, but which other authors explain, is that if there is no affliction emanating from the 7th-ruler then there is no indication that it has caused the querent?s problem, so the judgement is that the suspected party is not a thief or that the problem was not caused by deliberate theft.

For example, if the dignified planet made the last aspectual contact to the significator of the goods, but it was by a ?friendly aspect?; then the traditional judgement would be that the planet signifies a friendly person of integrity, who might have picked up (possibly forgotten it) without any intention to do an underhanded deed. Where there is a signature of affliction given by a dignified 7th house ruler separating from the 1st or 2nd ruler by hostile aspect (signifying a recent attack on the querent or the property) then that usually lacks the underhanded element too! Very often there is an expression of moral fury.

In my experience I have generally found that the essential dignities of the planets represent just that ? a sense of dignity which *usually* conveys inner integrity. However, this doesn?t always manifest as considerate or even ?socially acceptable? behaviour. In the other thread Tanit mentioned a female who she suspected of being a thief, signified by the Sun in Leo and acting as if the whole world belonged to her. That fits my understanding and experience. She probably would have admitted it with indignation if she had been caught !

One of my recent examples concerns a Mercurial querent who was concerned whether he would get something he owns back from a person signified by Jupiter in Pisces. But that chart had a different theme to it, so we could see from the signification that the quesited had no intention to be dishonest, he was just being typically Jupiterean in not paying attention to the little details of the querent?s world.

On the surface it is very inconsiderate behaviour, which we might see as lacking dignity and integrity. But Jupiter moves in a bigger circle than Mercury and Jupiter in Pisces expresses itself like Jupiter in Pisces - its mode of moral conduct is very different from that of Saturn or Mercury. Jupiter is likely to flaunt the law and skip the taxes, whilst paying for holidays for sick children; Saturn is more likely to get morally indignant about the law not being upheld, but will probably be blind to the beggars on the streets (unless it is debilitated; then it might be one of them)

Social standing and inner integrity don?t go together, but an essentially dignified planet describes someone who has had the opportunity to find their own strength, and they usually know how to use it. So they tend to lack fear, and because they don?t react in fear, they can often get the upper hand. One way to look at this is that an essentially dignified planet is more in control of its own self, and that *usually* shows a better expression of energies, but not always. They know exactly what they are doing though ? and they often have the ability to create more effect whilst expending less energy.

Deb

Having the power to act is one of the main ingredients in understanding essential dignity, I think. We all know that poorly dignified planets can have the power to act very badly indeed or, conversely no power to act at all, good, bad or indifferent.

It's an important thing to not to think that just because a planet has esential dignity, it won't act 'badly'. Put more descriptively, act within its own nature with the power to do so.

I have to admit I often struggle with essential dignities because having learned psychological astrology to start with, I was really only taught rulerships and that was it. Ess Digs were a minefield for me at first. Now, although I still feel I have a long way to go, I love looking at the essential dignities first before I look at anything else in a horary chart to see what the 'characters' are telling me. It's a bit like reading the play bill.

Sandra Lacey

Deb wrote:
One of my recent examples concerns a Mercurial querent who was concerned whether he would get something he owns back from a person signified by Jupiter in Pisces. But that chart had a different theme to it, so we could see from the signification that the quesited had no intention to be dishonest, he was just being typically Jupiterean in not paying attention to the little details of the querent?s world.

On the surface it is very inconsiderate behaviour, which we might see as lacking dignity and integrity. But Jupiter moves in a bigger circle than Mercury and Jupiter in Pisces expresses itself like Jupiter in Pisces - its mode of moral conduct is very different from that of Saturn or Mercury. Jupiter is likely to flaunt the law and skip the taxes, whilst paying for holidays for sick children; Saturn is more likely to get morally indignant about the law not being upheld, but will probably be blind to the beggars on the streets (unless it is debilitated; then it might be one of them)



Deb

An interesting observation, the non-paying client mentioned in this example, and represented by Jupiter in Pisces in a horary chart, but in her natal chart she has Gemini Rising, with the ruler Mercury in Capricorn in her 4th house. The querent, represented by Mercury in Capricorn in the horary, is actually very Jupitarian, having her natal Jupiter in Sag conj her MC and aspecting most of the planets in her charts, including her Aquarius Asc. There seems to be a reversal of roles from nativity to the horary.

Hi Deb,

I do find your explanation very interesting, cause it reveals that at first I completely misunderstood your position.

I find very enlightening to consider the simbolic meaning of a planet in order to access it's deeper motivation. I do agree that a planet in dignity stands for its inner meaning and have the power to enforce it. And not always does it in a social acceptable behavior, bringing shades of grey to how we should interpret.

From here on, correct me if I did not get it, but my take is that, as you yourself put, a dignified planet has strength to act easily than the contrary. And as such, if afflicting another planet, it damages. Sometimes we come across charts where a dignified Mars does represent, for example, assassination or hijacking (or even the criminal itself). Putting society's moral aside, that is the most damage a planet could represent. Similarly this applies when we see the ruler of 8th in domicile and afflicting the ruler of the AC. So, I do not know if you will agree with this as I know a few astrologers do not, but my opinion is that even a dignified planet can hurt a lot, mainly because it is in a position to do so (and, likely, is compelled to do so) and although the planet being in domicile may point that there is an underlying reason that can "justify", I find this possible damage arises more from the interactions that leads to conflicts in a chart, rather than because what a planet represents retains an essence of moral or righteousness (which is only motivation, not circumstance).

That is not to say that the planet in domicile is not "right", as it means that if anything else, by being there, it represents something or someone that "stands" to claim it's own place, to be in its dominion (primarily to it simply "is", it "understands" it to be so). The hard part is that not always will it fit with what we (by we I mean society) convey to be "right", and seldom do astrologers make moral judgments of who is right or who is wrong considering the nature of people (which is kind of a relativization). Rather, we tend to absolutes. That can be a huge mistake in my opinion, but often, hardly avoidable, as we ourselves have our own pre-conceived views at every moment.

Still, to think a planet in domicile is "nice" can also be misleading, as there is a plethora of other testimonies in a chart that could disqualify it. Especially in the case of malefics, that by itself represent things we tend to think as undesirable. The solution to this seemingly contraction, I'd say, is that we always should look at aspects, sect, receptions, mundane position and so on, cause that's what those are there for, to further the information about something that by itself is not definitive: essencial dignity.

Hi Paulo

I don't think our views are very different - perhaps a slightly different emphasis but nothing too significant. This week I don't have much time to respond but I would like to answer more fully, so I hope to come back to continue the discussion next week.

Deb