Sorry redshoes, by some quirk of logic I decided that Leo followed Virgo rather than Libra! :S

I mentioned Moon's inability to receive saturn as it might be relevant to the question. We don't know what the question is so we don't know if it's relevant. I also mentioned it in case a debilitated planet was unable to 'be received' (?)

I think the fact that the faster moving planet is considered with special importance is throwing me off a bit. Like in this example Saturn is peregrine and yet the gift of Moon in Capricorn just 'falls in its lap'.

For reception to occur, we need the RECEIVED planet to be in either the rulership or exaltation of the RECEIVING planet, or in TWO of the RECEIVING planet's lesser dignities (triplicity, term, and face).

A detrimented planet CAN BE RECEIVED. It doesn't matter what shape the RECEIVED planet is in - it can still be received.

The RECEIVING planet (Saturn) has to not be severely debilitated in order to offer reception. So were Saturn in Cancer or Aries it could not offer reception. Whether a peregrine planet can offer reception - I'd say yes, but it's probably not going to be a tremendously helpful reception. Can it receive if it's retrograde? Again, yes, but it won't be as helpful. Both peregrine and retrograde? Uhh...at that point you may be pushing it.

In this case, the Moon is in detriment in Capricorn (though it may have triplicity, but it's still not in a good place), so Saturn receives it. Saturn being in Libra, it's able to offer strong reception.

Can the Moon get help from that reception? Unlikely because of the Moon's detrimented state.

Does the Moon need help? Probably a little bit because it is in its detriment. If the planets are in trine (help me out here, how are we trining from Capricorn to Libra?) then the thing may still come to pass, but it won't be as good because the Moon is debilitated.

Thanks, Olivia. That answers my earlier question about a detrimented planet in conjunction with a planet in domicile. The planet in domicile would receive the detrimented planet (the detrimented planet would be received), but the detrimented planet would not receive the other.

Olivia wrote:For reception to occur, we need the RECEIVED planet to be in either the rulership or exaltation of the RECEIVING planet, or in TWO of the RECEIVING planet's lesser dignities (triplicity, term, and face).
(...)

The RECEIVING planet (Saturn) has to not be severely debilitated in order to offer reception. (...)

Olivia, can you help me please to find another ancient than Bonatti sharing your opinion? I only find much more less tight definitions as yet.

Thanks in advance!

From Sahl Ibn Bishr, Book I, I-9

The reception of the planets is when a planet is joined to [another] planet by its own domicile or its own exaltation; then it receives it in a good spirit and in a perfect reception. There is also another reception that is below this, i.e. less than that [kind], viz. when a planet is joined to the ruler of its own triplicity and terms or to the ruler of the terms and the face, i.e. when it is joined to a planet that has in its own place two or more of those minor dignities; and then it will be a true reception. But if it has only one, there will not be a reception there; and he says this because something different was transferred from them and by a skilled astrologer, it is said to be of no importance

And later in I-11

But there are places in which there is no reception and no conjunction. When the Moon or the ruler of the ASC was joined to a planet that does not have any testimony in the place of the Moon or the ruler of the ASC, i.e. it does not have any dignity, [then] it does not recognize it and it does not receive it. Similarly, if the Moon or the ruler of the ASC is joined to a planet in its own fall, it will be like someone who comes to him from the house of his enemies ? it does not receive it nor esteem it. An example of which is when the Moon is in Aries, and it is joined to Saturn, or it is in Capricorn and joined to Jupiter, or in Cancer and joined to Mars, or in Virgo and joined to Venus, or in Libra and joined to the Sun, or in Pisces and joined to Mercury. And if any significator was in its own fall and was joined to a planet that does not have in the place of that significator <any> power, namely of domicile or exaltation, it will see him for nothing, as if an unknown garment should be given to anyone asking; and if there was a planet joined to another planet in its own fall, or that planet descends giving disposition, it makes him to descend, and it diminishes what will come to him from this.

And finally

The explanation of return is when a planet or the Moon is joined to another planet that is retrograde or under the Sun beams, and it returns to it whatever it receives from it, and it destroys the matter.

The point where he says about "the houses of his enemies" is, as far as I know, very unique, and I don?t know any other quote who says the same. Also note that he only speaks about fall, and one has to wonder if would also work for exile.

The comment by Sahl seems to imply that a peregrine planet will have no power, even if it has reception (if I am reading it right... where are Steven when we need him?) :-)

Hopefully all quotes are in the right context

best regards

I love Sahl, he's always so clear. Somewhere in the book (don't have it to hand) he speaks about a planet joined to any planet in the first planet's descensions - detriment or fall.

The 'house of his enemies' concept is what Deb was talking about, I believe. When there's an easy aspect between two planets like that, there's an attraction between the planets because of the aspect, but the matter comes to no good - the one in the other planet's fall or detriment can only hurt the first planet. Or if they're both in each other's fall or detriment (I have this natally, in a trine) they'll hurt each other.

Hi Olivia,
Thankyou for your replies you have helped a great deal.

Does the Moon need help? Probably a little bit because it is in its detriment. If the planets are in trine (help me out here, how are we trining from Capricorn to Libra?)

The planets perfect the trine in the final degree of their signs (Saturn in Virgo, and Moon in Capricorn ) ... when they change signs Saturn moves to Libra and Moon to Aquarius. So both are improved.

Paul,
I didn't post the chart because its a relationship chart and I thought that there was a ban on those here. The chart has further complexities to it that I thought would confuse matters. I was more interested in understanding the receptions, and I thought it was a good example for this thread. Thankyou once again for being so helpful.

Yuzuru,
Thankyou for reinforcing everything with your references.

Cheers,
Red Shoes

Saturn holds term in the last 2 degrees of Virgo in the Egyptian scheme of terms, which I use. But most folks around here use Ptolemy's dignities, by which Saturn is peregrine.

Don't know if that matters, but I thought I'd mention it.

Thanks Olivia and everyone else!

This has been a really useful thread on reception and really clears a lot of things up!

I should add that when Sahl speaks of "return" he means "return of disposition" which is a more broad concept, he is not speaking only in the case of reception, but as a general rule regarding aspects.

This all holds true in natal work, as well. It plays out a little differently, but in terms of planet performance, this is one of the things to look for.

I'll also mention that Book 1 of Sahl's Introduction to the Science of the Judgments of the Stars is the most cogent explanation of planets, houses, and aspects I've ever read (yes, I am an unabashed Sahl groupie).

Book I is available in its entirety on Google Books here.

I may be biased, but the folks who wrote in Hebrew seem a lot more clear than the folks who wrote in Latin or English. It could just be that Hebrew's easier for me, but you won't get those twisty 10-line sentences that you will with Lilly.

I may be biased, but the folks who wrote in Hebrew seem a lot more clear than the folks who wrote in Latin or English. It could just be that Hebrew's easier for me, but you won't get those twisty 10-line sentences that you will with Lilly.

I think most people understand your point and would agree. Ben's translation of Sahl or Bonatti makes a much easier read than Christian Astrology. However, take Sahl as an example - we would be comparing a modern English translation of a Latin edition of that text, (brought fully up to date with modern English grammar and manner of expression) with an original expression of 17th century English (full of the original flavour of the language used at that time, and the conventions that we are not used to). Hence a translated text will read "if it is..." whereas Lilly will say "if it be..." and so forth. In a way this keeps Lilly's work in a bit of a time warp, but on the other hand we *can* understand what he is saying with a bit of mental application, and when we get used to it, it is nice to read his words as he orignally chose to express himself.

Would we want to get rid of Shakepeare's 'twisty sentences'? No - though I realise that we don't want to learn astrology from Shakespeare either