Mark writes:

And with all respects to John Frawley, who?s taken of his time to answer me on a number of times, are you both saying that the example of Venus in Aries = Venus loves Mars, is wrong?

Nah. Let's take a look at the chart that I think was mentioned above from Lilly's Prophetical Merlin, "A Gentlewoman desired to know if she should have an aged man." June 24, 1644 n/s 10:30 am LMT London. 16 Virgo rises.

Lilly's handling of this confuses the issue, but if we apply the axiom that a planet loves the the planets whose signs he is in, it works out nicely. The lady is Mercury in Cancer. Who does she love? The Moon. Who is the Moon? She is the Moon or at least the Moon represents her as emotional being. In short she loves herself. In other words she is motivated by self interest (In her situation I have no problem with that) or security issues, if that is more to a reader's liking. Mercury is in the exaltation of Jupiter, so she has a very high opinion of Jupiter. Who is Jupiter? Jupiter is the quesited. If we accept exaltation as something that is not quite based on reality, She loves what this man represents to her, but as we shall see, this isnit the objective reality.

What does she like? Mercury is in Cancer the triplicity of Mars. Mars plays another role in this drama, but one of them is Mars is quesited's money. Yeah she likes that too,

He's Jupiter what does he love? Jupiter is in Taurus, so he loves Venus. Venus is her as woman. He likes the comfort and the feminine side of her and he wants that in his old age. He is in the exaltation of the Moon. He elevates her in his mind perhaps to a station someone as calculating as she is doesn't deserve to be in. But he loves her as emotional being. This is all well and good, but what is in it for her? Not much. Jupiter is not in any of Mercury's dignities.

What we have is a lot of self interest here. She wants financial security first (a not unreasonable position given the age difference and cultural realities of the day). He is interested in having someone take care of him. He is not interested what he can do for her.

There is more detail in The Astrologer's Apprentice issue No 20 "Towards Reading Lilly," but we can see that this idea works well.

Tom

Lilly's handling of this confuses the issue, but if we apply the axiom that a planet loves the planets whose signs he is in, it works out nicely.

It might work out nicely for John?s way of describing this but it doesn?t seem to be the way that others have described it, including Lilly. I don?t see how Lilly has confused the issue. The way he has described the chart ?a Gentlewoman desired to know?.? is certainly how I would have seen it using the method of reception that I have understood. I understand reception in the way that Ben and Deb have explained with great clarity.

This debate has been very instructive for me. I understand this issue so much better now. I read John Frawley?s earlier two books a couple of years ago when I was but a mere pup in the art of horary. (Still am really). But it perplexed me no end when I read them. I also went to a couple of his lectures when he was in Australia early last year. Like Siraxi, I thought I must have misunderstood what I had been taught because what I understood differed from the version described in John?s books and his lectures. But I see now that John has a different way of looking at it that I don?t really feel comfortable with. In the example chart we have been using, Jupiter (the old man) receives Mercury (the young woman) into his exaltation. He welcomes her into his home because he desires her to be there. She is his honoured guest and he feels favourable towards her. But John puts the emphasis onto the young woman, claiming that because she exalts him she puts him on a pedestal. Yet she isn?t receiving him at all. She hasn?t invited him to her home. She must feel something for him to go to his home but not enough to invite him to hers. It is even clearer in the example that Deb gave earlier on ?Master B?s house?. Because the Sun (the seller) received Venus (Lilly), the seller felt favourable towards him. John?s method would be that Lilly would put the seller up on a pedestal. I think this is a point that Siraxi made earlier.

Ben, your point about Bonatti?s medieval requirements that a planet can only be received if it is also aspected by the planet in whose dignities it is in is interesting. This seems to contradict, or at least differ from, Lilly who says that something may be brought to pass that normally would not occur due to a lack of aspects between the primary significators if the two significators are in mutual reception. So, to use the example of the old man and young woman again, if Mercury and Jupiter were in mutual reception by exaltation say, but there were no aspects between them, Bonatti would say that they are unable to receive each other but Lilly would see the mutual reception as the potential for a positive outcome. Is this correct?

It might work out nicely for John?s way of describing this but it doesn?t seem to be the way that others have described it, including Lilly. I don?t see how Lilly has confused the issue.

I'd love to go into this in detail right away, but I'm off to a baseball game. Briefly Lilly says that Mercury in Cancer shows that that man wants the match. This is not the way he usually does it. Mercury is HER significator. John's point is not that Lilly didn't know what he is talking about, but rather that this particular horary was treated, in the writing anyway, in a cursory fashion that horaries in CA are not treated. If you have the Apprentice issue No. 20 it is all in there, if not, I'll try to add more to this later tonight or early tomorrow.

Tom

Briefly Lilly says that Mercury in Cancer shows that that man wants the match.

Where does he say that? Earlier you said that Mercury in Cancer showed that the woman loved herself, i.e. was only after her own interests. I don?t see that Mercury in Cancer can show that he wants the match.

I?ve read this judgement a few times and it seems fairly clear that Lilly is saying the man wants the match because Jupiter receives Mercury, not that Mercury is in Cancer. He is also not saying that Mercury exalts Jupiter and puts him on a pedestal.

the old man did much importune it., because Jupiter, receives Mercury in his exaltation and causeth a friendly trine to the degree ascending this was so:

Mercury had recently separated from a sextile with Jupiter. She once thought it might be a good idea but then got over it. She doesn?t receive him at all.

From what I can see, this is the same way that he judges the ?buying of the house? horary where the Sun (seller) receives Venus (Lilly) thereby showing favour. I don?t see how they are different in their methods or Lilly?s explanation.

Quote:
Briefly Lilly says that Mercury in Cancer shows that that man wants the match.

Where does he say that?

Right here:

?I judged there lately had been some treaty about it (which was confessed), and that the old man did much importune it, because Jupiter receives Mercury in his exaltation, and causes a friendly trine to the degree ascending this was so.?

How else can Jupiter receive Mercury into Jupiter?s exaltation unless Mercury is in Cancer?

The problem I have with all this is who is doing the receiving and who is received. I may be approaching senility or it?s a case of inability to penetrate my thick skull, but I get this stuff confused all the time. I've always wondered how a planet can receive one into it's domicile if the planet isn't home to receive him? So I?m going to dispense with the ?who receives whom? bit and ?who exalts whom? bit. Mercury is in Cancer in this chart, we can all agree on that. Cancer is the exaltation of Jupiter. No problem there either. ?Importune? means to ?To beset with repeated and insistent requests.? (American Heritage Dictionary). So far we?re all on the same page. So when the man importunes he is expressing his desire for the marriage. And Lilly is telling us that Mercury in Cancer, the exaltation sign of Jupiter, the man?s significator, means that the man wants the match. That makes my head spin. Mercury is her significator; it shows us her intentions. Jupiter is his significator; it shows us his intentions.

Let?s look at that without referring to who is receiving whom. Mercury, the significator of the querent, is in Cancer and it shows that she does have some consideration for the old guy because Cancer is the exaltation sign of the quesited's significator. This is just confirmation by the chart of what we already know. After all, if she wanted nothing to do with him, why would she bother paying an astrologer to answer her question? If we want to see if the man wants the match, we look to Jupiter, and in this chart Jupiter is in Taurus the exaltation of the Moon and domicile of Venus, both are her significators. (CA pages 302 - 305 see below). He wants the comforts of a woman, but since Jupiter is not in any dignities of Mercury, querent?s significator, we have to wonder if he wants this particular woman or will almost any other woman willing to give him comfort fit the bill?

The other problem I have with this example is that Lilly does not handle the explanation of it with the detail and his full reasoning powers that he does in many of the examples in CA. I don?t know enough about Lilly to make any kind of judgment as to whether or not, in 1644, the time of the question and publication of the book, Lilly had achieved the level of expertise that he shows in the 1647 publication of CA. I would guess that he had since some of the examples in CA predate this one. I get the feeling this question was little more than ?filler? attached to the end of a detailed mundane treatise. Maybe it was a form of advertising.


Lilly doesnot follow the rules he sets down in CA, published three years after The Prophetical Merlin. In CA page 302 ? 305 he explains that in a 7th house question, the querent gets Lord ASC and the Moon, and the quesited gets Lord 7. In addition the man gets the Sun and the woman gets Venus. He adds, but doesn?t seem to use too much, if at all, that the querent gets the planet last aspected by the Moon and the quesited the planet next aspected by the Moon. In this question he ignores that rule. He at first only gives the querent Lord 1 and the quesited Lord 7.

The querent hath Mercury only for her significator. Jupiter is for the aged man and party quesited after.

Then, in the text, he notes the Moon as if it were assigned to the querent (as it should be).

Nor had Mercury or Luna any dignities where Mars was.

To me this indicates a bit of sloppiness, and we need to read the text with a bit more care since Lilly isn't giving us what he does in the better examples in CA.

If we apply the rules mentioned in CA we see the woman?s significator ?loves? the Moon (Mercury in Cancer). Who is the Moon? She is the Moon. Mercury is in the exaltation of Jupiter. Who is Jupiter? The man is Jupiter. She has some feelings for him. Mercury is in the triplicity of Mars. Mars is his money and as the question shows she has a concern there.

Jupiter is in the domicile of Venus. The querent is Venus as woman. Jupiter is in the exaltation of the Moon. Again this is the woman but as emotional being. Jupiter is in no dignities of Mercury. The man wants someone to care for him possibily as he sees debilitating old age just around the corner, and knows he will need help. Her major concern is how will she be cared for financially, and his is who will care for him in his old age. As I said above, there is a lot of self interest here, much of it understandable.

Given the apparent lack of care given to writing this down, I think we need to exercise some care with this judgment. Moreover, if we apply Callanan's law of mudied explanations: IF the explanation of a an example is longer than the example itself, the example is flawed, we have yet another reason to view this example skeptically.

I'm not as familiar as I ought to be with the purchase of Mr B's houses, so I think I'll spend some of this magnificent day sitting in my back yard reading about it.

Best

Tom

About receptions, I don?t have much to add, but this article is interest because compare some views from the authorities in the past, since helenistic untill Lilly. Has some comentaries in the necessity of aspects, as Ben said.
Hope it adds light and not darkness to the discussion
Y
http://www.worldastrology.net/articles/reception.html

I don't think Lilly is saying that the man wants the match because Mercury is in Cancer. He is saying that the man wants the match because Jupiter (his significator) receives Mercury (her significator) into his exaltation. You might say that this is saying the same thing but I don?t believe they are quite the same. Yes, we know that for Mercury to be in the exaltation of Jupiter it has to be in Cancer. But the act of receiving is crucial in my mind to understanding the issue with reception. It is the fact that the man welcomes her and gives her strength with that welcome and extends his virtue to her that makes this important. She may make the offer and approach him but without him receiving her into his exaltation there will not be any acceptance of the offer. If he received her into his terms or face it would indicate that he was lukewarm about the idea.

I disagree with the way that John?s explanation would see the young woman put him on a pedestal. This says nothing about his willingness to welcome her and give her the benefit of his strength. To say that a planet ?loves? the sign that it is in is being far too simplistic and only telling a fraction of the story. And since she does not receive him at all it doesn?t seem to indicate a strong response from her. I?ve been reading some material that Bonatti wrote on reception. It is similar to the way Lilly has used it and the way I understand it. But I can?t see how it relates to the way John describes it. In Bonatti's (and Lilly's) explanation it appears that the action is given to the receiving planet (Jupiter welcomes Mercury with great delight into his exaltation)whereas in John's way of describing it, the action is given to the planet that is received (Mercury loves Jupiter because she is in his exaltation).

Bonatti gives some examples of reception or ?donation of virtue? as he liked to call it. ??the Moon was in the 3rd degree of Aries and Mars, which is the lord of Aries, was in the 8th degree of Gemini?.; now the Moon was joined to Mars by aspect and Mars received her by his domicile, and committed his own virtue and disposition to her.? Or another one ?the moon was in the said 3rd degree of Aries and the Sun, which is the lord of Aries by exaltation, was in the 8th or 9th degree of Gemini? the Moon was joined to the Sun by aspect, and the Sun received her by his exaltation, and committed to her his strength.

Bonatti describes this as the commission or donation of virtue and disposition of a planet. But he also says that if the Moon were joined to Saturn, which is in the triplicity of Aries, and Saturn had no other dignities, he would not receive the Moon because he doesn?t have the strength other than a minor dignity. In this case, what he calls a perfect reception could not take place.

One thing I find interesting is Bonatti?s idea of the ?return of virtue?. If the planet that is being received is combust or retrograde, Bonatti says that it is not able to retain the virtue and gives back the virtue to the planet who gave it. So, in our example, if Mercury had been combust or retrograde, it would have to return the virtue that Jupiter had bestowed upon it because it didn?t have the strength to hang on to the virtue it had received by being in Jupiter?s exaltation. This is interesting. I would perhaps have seen that being in the exaltation of a planet when you are so weak yourself would serve to lessen your weakness but if you are so weak anyway then you don't even have the ability to hold on to the strength being offered. However, if Jupiter as the receiving planet is in serious debility then it will confer that debility onto Mercury. So obviously reception is not always a good thing, a point I believe Deb explained earlier.

It isn?t until participating in this thread that I realised how much information there is to be gained from looking at reception. I certainly understand it a lot better than I did and a lot of the confusion has gone for me. I have to say that I find it much easier to think of planets receiving than other ways of looking at it.

Sue

I disagree with the way that John?s explanation would see the young woman put him on a pedestal.

The bit about the pedestal usually applies in horaries where at least one person is absolutely nuts about the other. It's associated with the feelings that usually occur at the begining of a passionate relationship. He/she can do no wrong. In one of the Apprentice issues John says it is the time in a relationship where the other's unsavory habits don't bother the star struck lover. However, this is not really the case here. This is a more pragmatic inquiry. The other way John and others look at exaltation is a planet above its station. Something isn't quite real and this fits this case to a "T". She thinks he is rich. He has financial problems. She didn't know this at the time and the fact that Mercury is in Jupiter's exaltation explains this perfectly. He has nothing to give her. She thinks he does. Lilly suggests she ask for a jointure or something, that would guarantee her an income in the event of this death. He can't do that and so the match doesn't occur. She has unrealistic expectations of him (her significator is in his significator's exaltation). It fits perfectly this way.

She may make the offer and approach him but without him receiving her into his exaltation there will not be any acceptance of the offer. If he received her into his terms or face it would indicate that he was lukewarm about the idea.

He made the offer and she gave it consideration and ultimately rejected it. Yes, if she put him on a pedestal, then she would have jumped at the chance and married him without consulting an astrologer, but she was being cautious and that to me indicates that we need to look at the exaltation another way. Her hopes for his wealth vanished when he admitted he could not give her what she wanted.

Furthermore the dispositors of his planets also validate that he just wanted comfort and care in his old age. It is doubtful that he wanted her and only her. We can't be 100% sure of that of course, but given what little information we have, John's way of looking at reception gives us a lot to work with, and I think the way Lilly explained it does quite a bit less.

I disagree with the way that John?s explanation would see the young woman put him on a pedestal. This says nothing about his willingness to welcome her and give her the benefit of his strength.

The man has no strength. Jupiter has dignity only by term and the Sun, his other significator, is peregrine. He is in this for what she can give to him. He has no money to support her (Mars, Lord 8, or 2nd of the 7th, is about to leave domicle and enter detriment). This is the point of the horary.

"Can he take care of me financially? I see he seems to have a lot of money."(exaltation)

"No he can't his finances (turned 2nd) are strong but his fortunes are about to change for the worse (Mars in Aries about to enter Taurus). Your exalted opinion of him has no basis."

If we look at this as Jupiter receiving Mercury into Jupiter's exaltation and that as he giving her his strength, we are left to explain how this is possible in light of the fact that he has no strength with which to care for her. She figured that out and left him.

I wouldn't place much literal emphasis on John's use of the word "Love" in regard to reception. It is a really a device to keep the principle in the mind of the astrologer. If I ask about a raise and Lord 11 (Boss's money) is in my dignities, the money "loves" me and therefore wants to be near me. This is, then, testimony that I am getting the raise. The money, obviously, cannot love anything. "Love" can be a metaphor, not always a concrete description.


Best wishes,

Tom

I have just found a definitive text on Reception which makes it all very clear, using the traditional sources: Reception by Steven Birchfield on http://www.worldastrology.net/articles/reception.html .

siraxi wrote:I have just found a definitive text on Reception which makes it all very clear, using the traditional sources: Reception by Steven Birchfield on http://www.worldastrology.net/articles/reception.html .

In the text "Reception," Steven Birchfield writes:

"The question has presented itself several times on the list, can two planets receive each other and they have no aspect between them, for example Mars in Taurus and Venus in Aries. The answer I believe is yes and no....This type of reception was called 'generosity.'"

"Generosity" = "But" as in "no but yes," as in "they're not supposed to, but actually, they can," i.e., "yes, they can."

A distinction without a difference.

I think Frawley's approach is correct.

Another serious study on Reception - Sue Ward's "An Explanation of Reception" : http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sueward/a ... eiving.pdf

siraxi wrote:Another serious study on Reception - Sue Ward's "An Explanation of Reception" : http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sueward/a ... eiving.pdf

Thank you for this...Sue Ward notes that Lilly used "reception of mixed dignities." This is particularly interesting as I believe Lee Lehman argued against this usage in her book "Classical Astrology for Modern Living," as I seem to recall...I don't know whether or not it's medieval practise, but it was, apparently, Lilly's....