cosmicdolphin wrote:Dear Johannes

Yes indeed, LIlly does state if you have a strong MR you do not need an aspect. Ivy Goldstein backs William Lilly as well.

I am YET to see MR without an aspect working though. Do you have examples?

Thank you
CD

Dear CD,

I'm sorry but having my archive not index by aspects or anything but names I cannot deliver an example. But at the moment we are just discussing and trying to clarify terms and definitions more theoretically - a few steps before praxis.

As to strength of mutual reception: The exampel given by Lilly (CA, p. 112) is not at all strong Venus and Mars being in their terms only.

Regards
Johannes

Olivia wrote: No aspect - no reception. At least I've always taken that as read in classical texts, and even in the early moderns like Lilly.

But what is a quote for if you don't read it not believing the quote. The quote is: Christian Astrology, page 112, first and second paragraph.

In case you have Lilly's book not at hand, I'll write the text down for you, Olivia.

Again, please read Deb's article, linked above. It's not so simple as it seems in Lilly.

Which might be what caused all the confusion in the first place.

Hi Johannes

I know those words look straightforward but Lilly's use of mutual reception without an aspect is quite complex. It doesn't seem to be anywhere near as straightforward as that introductory comment suggests. This is a point that I demonstrate at length in my course but it's hard to wrap it up in a nutshell. I'll try to do that here by saying that Lilly, like all other authors, recognises reception as something which describes the influence of an aspect. Nothing can happen without a relevant point of contact, but what you might get is the enhanced prospect of perfection when two significators are in this state of 'generosity' towards each other, combined with some other way that contact is provided between them.

An example is in the chart published in Christian Astrology on p.385: "A lady, if marry the gentleman desired?" Here Jupiter is a collecting planet for the two significators (Sun and Saturn). The Moon is not in aspect to Jupiter but it is in mutual reception by sign (Jupiter is in Cancer/Moon in Sagittarius) and itself applying to the asc-ruler. So by taking the Moon as a co-significtor for the querent's interests, and seeing Jupiter sympathetic to those interests, he more strongly recommended Jupiter as someone who would help overcome the difficulties of the chart. But this indication of natural inclination could only be used because both of the main significators were directly in contact with Jupiter. Without a point of contact to show that it can be used, there is just the sense of "I would help if I could".

I want to put something together that will be easier to follow at a practical level because these 'theoretical' discussions can sometimes add more confusions than they eliminate. When it is properly understood reception is an extremely descriptive and simple to understand principle. I might use that chart as an example, so I won't add more here for now, even though I know it is unsatisfactory to not be able to complete this discussion.

Deb

Olivia wrote:Again, please read Deb's article, linked above. It's not so simple as it seems in Lilly.

Which might be what caused all the confusion in the first place.

Deborah does not contradict Lilly's definition of mutual reception at all in her article, Olivia.

Deborah in her article:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is generally understood that reception is only relevant where an aspect is involved. As the 12th century astrologer Ibn Ezra states:

"Reception is noticed when a planet enters into conjunction or into aspect with a planet which is the master of its house, the master of the house of its honour, the master of the house of its triplicity, its limit, or its face".

However, Ezra also notes a condition called 'liberality' where:


"each of two planets is in the house of its companion, or in the house of its honour, or in any of its influences, and, even though they do not enter into conjunction or aspect with each other, still there will be reception between them".[7]

Hence the current debate about whether reception has significance where the two planets are not connected by aspect appears to be answered. Reception requires an aspect, but where there is no aspect the same benefits may be expected, providing the reception is mutual, as Lilly has intimated in his introductory definition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In her article Deborah exposes one exception: Questions of the eighth concerning death. No rule without exception . . .

Sorry Deb, I posted my text without having noticed your text. I haven't read it yet, hoping I understood your article rightly.

Going to read your text soon

Johannes

Hi Deb,

sorry for the very late response, but to understand the judgement of Lilly in "A Lady, . . . " was not at all easy even though highly interesting. Thank you for this advice too.

Deb wrote:I want to put something together that will be easier to follow at a practical level because these 'theoretical' discussions can sometimes add more confusions than they eliminate. When it is properly understood reception is an extremely descriptive and simple to understand principle. I might use that chart as an example, so I won't add more here for now, even though I know it is unsatisfactory to not be able to complete this discussion.Deb

I agree with you that

"reception is an extremely descriptive and simple to understand principle".

And Lilly's and Ibn Ezra's definitions of mutual reception are clear and simple too. But after reading your text above, your article on "Lilly's use of Reception" and William Lilly, CA p. 385-388, I have to admit to be very surprised at your (and Olivia's) evaluation concerning Lilly's definition of mutual reception. In my opionion it is and remains crystal clear and was withal not new at its time but it is rather in the tradition of Ibn Ezra, whose quote was kindly introduced by yourself in your article.

I should like to quote another translation of Ibn Ezra's Beginning of Wisdom, made by Meira B. Epstein:
"Generosity is when two planets are in each other's domicile, or exaltiation, or some other rulership, even though they do not join nor aspect one another, there ist [still] reception between them."

Robert Hand in a footnote additional :
"This is the modern definition of a mutual reception. In most medieval texts mutual reception requires that the two planets be in aspect as well as being in each other's dignity of the same kind. Here an in the latin version of Abu Ma'shar's Abbreviation we find this form of mutual reception without requiring the aspect as a separate kind of mutual reception in both cases called "Generosity." This might be a terminology worth restoring."

In my opinion it is not really the same to understand the (theoretical) definitions and then to prove (or to disprove ) them by the author's praxis. It would be interesting to see accord or disaccord, a contradiction or an alteration of the abstract definition. But the definition itself - if at all comprehensible - stands for itself. Or would you ignore Ibn Ezra's definition "Liberality" only because of missing a practical example for this in his writings?

At large we have the definition of mutual reception without aspect given by two authors and not the least cause to doubt it in my opinion.

This said the case of "A Lady, . . . " together with Lilly's highly complicated judgment could not cancel or abolish his abstract definition of mutual reception even if it would be in cotradiction to it - and in my opinion it is in no contradiction to it. As you

"might use that chart as an example"

I should say only this: The mutual receptions (without aspects) of Moon-Jupiter and Moon-Sun are in reality no supporting elements of the judgement as they are not mentioned anymore in Lilly's statement beginning with the sentencce: "In Astrologie, the true reason of this performance is . . . ". But all mentioned mutual receptions, as well the two first mentioned as the last one (oppsoition between the Moon and Lord seven) given in the "true reason" as "another small argument" are working as Lilly states himself.

Regards
Johannes

Hi Johannes

I hope the fact that I quoted the remarks shows that I am not ignoring them. I did so, so that people can make up their own minds. With regards to Lilly?s work, all I would say is that if we stick to the words he used in his introductory definition of terms, we won?t understand his techniques or how he applied those definitions in practise. For example I don?t find that particular judgement complicated but very elegant and expressive of strong symbolism; because I am very familiar with his techniques and understand exactly what he is doing. Being aware of his practical approach can often throw a whole new light on what he was really trying to say. Also, until only recently nearly all astrologers I knew believed that all the references to 'reception' meant 'mutual reception' just because of his words in that introductory definition. I don't think it is wise to take anything on face value without confirmation of seeing the principle applied in chart work.

Anyway, was liberality really useful in its own right? Who is to say it is not? However, I?m not aware of Lilly or any other traditional author using it as a technique to bring a matter to perfection; rather than offering underlying support for significators than connect in some other way, as in the chart I quoted. This is something that I have had flagged as a point of interest for a few years now, so I can suggest that it wasn?t a common feature of traditional chart judgement, but maybe there are many examples I am unaware of.

(I did write an earlier response but I lost it as my web connection broke, and I have to leave now, so I tried to recapture this quickly and hope it still makes sense).

Best regards
Deb

It's been suggested throughout the thread that the 'like/love' principle should only really be reserved for love horaries, but why this reservation?

Not long ago we had a horary on whether someone's son would get accepted to a top university. Surely the like/love scenario could be used here too. The university really liking the querent and the querent really like the university is a useful way of thinking things through about this?

I've read Deb's article on reception and also watched Rob Hand's youtube video and read through examples on this forum and I alternate between feeling like I understand reception and being utterly bewildered. I can recognise that there's a reception there, but if we return to the like/love scenario, what I cannot always work out or understand is who loves who, as there seems to be contradictory evidence and examples.

Take a scenario where Mars in Leo signifies the querent, and quesited (say a job, a lover, a university accepting you or whatever) is the Sun in Libra.

Who likes who and why?

Take a scenario where Mars in Leo signifies the querent, and quesited (say a job, a lover, a university accepting you or whatever) is the Sun in Libra.

Who likes who and why?

The lighter, applying planet likes the more ponderous, the applied to planet. Lilly's example of horary judgment regarding the meeting of King Charles and his queen comes to my mind instantly - king was signified by the Moon, queen by Saturn and Lilly judged that king was anxious to see his wife.The lighter planet is pictured as striving/desirous and it certainly makes sense, since it is the "more active" one.
In your example, Sun in its fall would be unable to receive Mars anyway, because it is debilitated, but it would also signify(in case the applying aspect is actually there) that the quesited comes to the querent. However, the querent(Mars) rejects what the quesited has to offer because it comes to him out of the house of its enemies(Libra is the sign of Mars's detriment).
Hope this helps a bit.
Regards,
Goran

cor scorpii wrote:

Take a scenario where Mars in Leo signifies the querent, and quesited (say a job, a lover, a university accepting you or whatever) is the Sun in Libra.

Who likes who and why?

[...]In your example, Sun in its fall would be unable to receive Mars anyway, because it is debilitated, but it would also signify(in case the applying aspect is actually there) that the quesited comes to the querent. However, the querent(Mars) rejects what the quesited has to offer because it comes to him out of the house of its enemies(Libra is the sign of Mars's detriment).
Hope this helps a bit.
Regards,
Goran

To put the "love"- or "like"-problem aside: Goran, when you write:

In your example [Mars in Leo signifies the querent, and quesited (say a job, a lover, a university accepting you or whatever) is the Sun in Libra.],
Sun in its fall would be unable to receive Mars anyway, because it is debilitated, (...)

is this your own opinion or can you quote some authority?

I ask because my understanding of reception was as yet that a Planet in the dignity of another IS received whatever the position of the receiving planet might be. (All this independant of the necessity of aspects for the moment).

Mars cannot receive the Sun in his (Mars) detriment (Libra). But the Sun receives Mars in his (the Sun's) domicile naturally even if the Sun himself is in his detriment.

Hello, Johannes

My source is Bonatti - On Whether a Matter Will Come to Pass

When Reception is Not Effective

Also one must know that although I have said that matters will be perfected by trine and sextile aspects, nevertheless it is necessary to understand rationally; because if the place from which the lord of the Ascendant or the Moon is aspected by the lord of the matter sought for, (to wit, the planet by which the matter is signified or the place from which the lord or the significator of the matter is aspected by the lord of the Ascendant or by the Moon is aspected) is a major debility of the aspecting planet, the matter is not perfected even if the aspect is a sextile or trine as in the following example:

The Ascendant was Leo and there was a question about marriage, whether it would be perfected or not, and the Sun or the Moon (which signifies wives) was joined by Saturn from Aries which is the fall of Saturn. Even though the aspect as it is in itself is with reception, nevertheless Saturn does not perfect the matter; to the contrary it impedes it so that the matter is not perfected; not only does it impede, it even brings the matter forth to destroy it if it can. And if it were joined to the significator [of the querent] from Cancer or from Leo, it would do the same because either of these is a fall for Saturn. It is similar if the significator of any matter, or the Moon is joined by the Sun from Libra which is his descension, or Aquarius which is his fall, because then the Sun cannot receive any of these and so it destroys the matter and does not permit it to be perfected. Also [it is the same] if a significator is joined by Venus from Scorpio, from Aries, or from Virgo, or by Jupiter from Capricorn, from Gemini, or from Virgo. And you should understand the major debility of any planet [in the same way]; nor does any aspect prevail unless a reception should intervene which breaks malice. You should also understand it [to be] the same if a significator or the Moon is joined by a planet which is in the major debility of that significator or the Moon, such as if Mercury were the significator and were joined by a planet which is in Sagittarius or Pisces, or the Moon were joined by a planet which is in Scorpio or Capricorn. Whether a planet is joined by a planet which is in its descension, or that planet which is in the descension of another is joined by that planet whose descension it is, it always brings the matter forth to detruction and annuls it.

Hope this helps