I think the two approaches are quite different. I've read John's books and been to his talks too and his use of reception is not the way I have been taught. I don't have the books at hand either. But to use your example of Jupiter in Taurus and Mercury in Cancer, the way I remember it, John would say that because Mercury is in the exaltation of Jupiter then Mercury puts Jupiter up on a pedestal. This seems to be the opposite from what you have said.

I do know what you mean though. I have thought of something similar. Perhaps a book something along the lines of 'A Modern Guide to Lilly,' with easy to understand explanations and modern examples of charts.

Sue,

This is exactly what I tried to mean.By 'modern' I meant today's English not the so-called moderns' approach to astrology.

I look forward to having one day the book

Thanks for the feedback on the article. It?s always great to know someone is interested in what you write.

With regards the edition of CA I produced way back, I no longer have anything to do with Ascella which is the distributor. From what I understand supplies are virtually non-existent. A real shame because a lot of work went into annotating it, not just from myself but from a lot of other experts who got involved; and Lilly?s work is so much easier to follow when you can also see the charts in modern format I think. For more information contact me by email. I tend not to draw attention to it, since people would only struggle to get hold of it anyway.


Annie you may be right that it is all about the language, and language can be a confusing thing. It?s the little things that make the difference. In his chapter on reception JF writes:

The texts use confusing language for receptions, with talk of planets ?receiving? each other, or ?rendering virtue? from one to another. Far simpler to state simply ?Venus is in the sign of Jupiter?, or ?Mars exalts Saturn?.

Is it simpler to state it like that? (surely not ? how hard is it to say a planet is receiving another ?). Whether it is simpler or not, it doesn?t convey a true sense of the concept involved. It implies that the planet being received is in a weakened position in the ?power play? between the planets, rather than it being seen as acknowledged and attended to.

What does ?Mars exalts Saturn? mean? That Mars is being received into the exaltation of Saturn? Or that it is receiving Saturn into his? In the context of John?s work we can see what he means, but use that phrase to anyone with a wider understanding of reception and it would be very confusing.

John suggests that a planet ?exalts the planet in whose exaltation it falls?. Students take from this the notion ?ah, she/he is exalting the other ? obviously infatuated?. In relationships infatuation implies emotional vulnerability and that implies weakness. So being received by exaltation, which traditionally (and as demonstrated by Lilly) means attentions that are welcomed and well received, is now being taken to mean that the querent is a delusional no hoper who views the quesited as a supergod.

JF also uses the term reception so broadly that his explanations are inappropriate for the traditional understanding of the technique. He states that reception operates if any of the significators are in any dignity or debility of the other planet. As you can see from the article that gives a brief comparison of the definitions of reception by historical authors, there are usually minor points of difference between their definitions but there?s a pretty clear consensus upon the general principle involved:

• Reception operates where the two planets are in aspect ? unless it is mutual then we don?t need the aspect so much.
  
  It?s only reliable if it involves reception by sign or exaltation or at least two of the minor dignities. (Morinus argues sign, exaltation or triplicity and ignored the minor dignities).
  
  There?s no such thing as reception by debility. How can a planet receive another in a place it doesn?t own and that is actually hostile to it? It?s like hoping to make a deal with Osama Bin Laden at the Oval office of the white house ? just doesn?t happen. If Bin Laden was there, he wouldn?t be in a position to exercise his influence in any meaningful manner.

JF suggests (in his example, ?Did he really love me?? p.78 ff.) that because (according to his reasoning) Mars ?detriments? Venus, ?he [Mars] hates her?. And likewise, because Venus ?exalts? Mars, she is ?besotted with him?.

In fact there are none of the qualifications for reception between the two planets in his example ? there is no mutual reception and they are not in a traditionally recognised aspect. With no reception we can only eliminate the use of it in the analysis. We don?t need it anyway because the reading of the chart is very clear from other factors, such as the position of the Moon, ruler of the 5th house, on the 5th house cusp, applying to the opposition of Venus, the querent.

But if we ignore the necessity for qualification as John seems to do, then wouldn?t the traditional interpretation (as you explained it above) be that Venus, being received into the exaltation of Mars, generated a strong reception from him? That he presented himself in his best light to her (a false and exaggerated light perhaps, as we see from the rest of the factors in the chart), and that he was very receptive to her interests and no doubt encouraged her attentions? But that by Mars being in her detriment, he had nothing to offer that was of real value to her and would only cause her to lose self-respect through her association with him?

Can you see how we are led in two completely different directions by the two approaches? In John?s explanation, she?s besotted by him but he hates her. In the traditional understanding of the technique, he is shown as a rat, he is bad for her, but he is still encouraging of her. The debility she would suffer through continuing the contact is more than she is willing to compromise herself over. The Moon?s opposition shows the thing is over, but it seems to me that the chart as a whole and his story ?I only slept with someone else because I was blackmailed into it?? suggests he was still trying to lead her on, if only he could get away with it. If he hated her, why would he bother to come up with false explanations for his actions?

So I don?t think this is a case of John using different language to express the same principle. On the one hand I think his explanations are too simplistic, but on another I actually think they are overly complicated. It seems to involve an awful lot of analysis just to work out who or what is loving or liking whom or what, and who or what that significator is loving, liking, loathing and hating, then translating that into matters that relate to pay packets, etc, ? just to figure out something that?s immediately obvious if we stick to the traditional expression of planets ?receiving? each other ? the meaning of which is self-evident.

I actually think there are some real nuggets of gold in John?s book but I also think there are other areas like this, which can be misleading for anyone thinking (as most readers will) that it is going to be a great way to understand the traditional techniques used by Lilly. John claims that the rightful place for Lilly?s work is at the heart of the astrological canon, that it will remain the standard textbook of horary, and that where his book differs is in placing a greater emphasis upon first principles. But I think this example suggests that his employment of the technique falls outside of first principles (at least as demonstated by the majority of our primary sources), so ? in light of how influential his book is likely to be - it seems fair to question what he has written on this, no matter how fond we may be of him.

Anyway, I feel I have digressed into a defence of Frawley ? which I guess in part it was, but also in part to nut out what I had learnt from Frawley?s books in the context of the seemingly ?alternate? discussion on reception.

I?ve always liked John Frawley, have always admired and recommended his work and still do. But so much confusion has arisen lately the issue needs to be aired in the spirit of constructive debate - just as John (and I) would challenge some of Lilly's views even though we greatly respect him overall. John needs no defending. He can put a mean argument together when he wants to. I don't think he ever responds to discussion like this but maybe we?ll see it in his next book.

dear deb,

oh yes, thank you for clarifying that about my example; i did not mean to say that saturn likes the moon by exaltation twice - gee, i must have been sleeping or rushed when i wrote that.

thank you too for the great article on reception! i have shared it with several friends.

annie, thanks for your input about dispositors! i hadnt thought about it much, but it seems to make a lot of sense.


great thread!


sincerely,
chrissy

Deb

Brilliant!

Quite agree ? a healthy and constructive debate is always a positive thing! It?s all too easy to fall into the habit of ?well, such and such says ? and therefore it must be true?, rather than actually switch on our brains and really considering what is being put forward and working towards a solid understanding.

And Bravo Ben!

From now on whenever I?m trying to work out ?reception? I will always hold the your description of the scene from ?Kingdom of Heaven? in the forefront of my mind ? it explains it all so brilliantly that there can be no confusion!

Thank you to all who have made me seriously consider this topic ? my understanding has been greatly enriched.

Ann

Annie I agree. There must have been a moment of real connection with the principle when Ben noted that scene in the film because his description of it has certainly struck a chord with me and many others, I know. (Plus it made me want to go and see the film, which I did, just to see that scene )

I have wondered why it is such a classic and powerful analogy, and I suspect it is something about the Arabic trappings of the scenario. The Arabic astrologers seem to have been the ones who really developed this principle, and I always think that if you want to understand something, you should aim to see it through the eyes of those who placed most respect upon it.

Anyway, just want to add my thanks to Ben, for that and for lots of other support he gave me whilst I was preparing my article.

Mercury in Cancer also loves the Moon and holds Jupiter in high esteem (Mercury in the exaltation of Jupiter).

Rulership shows love, exaltation shows exaggerated feeling, adnd triplicity shows friendship.

Yes, but whose exaggerated feeling? In the example of Jupiter in Taurus and Mercury in Cancer, Mercury is in the exaltation of Jupiter. Jupiter exalts Mercury. And why turn it into a negative thing when it is actually positive? As I said in a previous post, John would have us reading this as Mercury puts Jupiter on a pedestal and has exaggerated feelings for Jupiter, the implication being that this is a negative thing. However, Jupiter exalts Mercury, inviting Mercury into its home and confering positive benefits onto Mercury because of its fondness for it. If I invite a close friend into my home and take care of them because I am very fond of them how does that then put the friend in a position of weakness? One would think that the friend gains strength from being so well thought of.

John has stated that exaltation is often what the astrologer sees at the beginning of the relationship when one's unsavory habits are considered charming. After a while the luster wears off. If the relationship never gets beyond exaltation, it is not based in any kind of reality.

In all of the traditional texts, exaltation is the second most positive and beneficial of all receptions. In John's examples it has become one of the least desirable. He seems to equate exaltation with unreasonable infatuation. This goes against tradition.

Hi Tom,

That is exactly how I had understood John?s meaning (as you?ll see when you read the above posts).

I think you do need to read my posts and perhaps read my article to understand why I suggest this is misleading. The way that JF is advocating the use of dispositors is peculiar to him. You can?t identify who someone loves just by looking at ?the planet that rules the sign their significator is in?. That?s unreliable and very oversimplified.

If you look at what Annie explained in her first post above, you?ll see that her original conclusions were very similar to some that you made, (following John?s approach), on the first page of this thread concerning the chart of the woman and the old man. I have reproduced the chart below and I have also put the chart and Lilly?s full judgement at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aged.html because so many people have referred to it in this and other threads.

Annie said that Jupiter loves Venus and Mercury loves the Moon. So, taking Venus as a co-significator for the woman [Lilly says he only takes Mercury for the woman?s significator but let?s overlook that point and assume he would accept Venus as a co-significator]; and using the Moon as a co-significator for the querent, she then deduced that he was 'into' her and she was 'into' herself. You also said the same in your earlier post when you wrote:

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.

But that?s not the case - the woman did have an affection for the older man, but at the point of the horary her affections were for a soldier (Mars), which Lilly saw straight away by the fact that both the Moon and Mercury (her significators) are separating from Jupiter (older man) and applying to Mars (so both of her significators are transferring from Jupiter to Mars). Mercury is almost exact in its application to the square of Mars and the fact that hers is the applying planet suggests she is the one with the inclination to develop the relationship with the soldier.

But Lilly also saw that the soldier wasn?t interested, because the application between Mercury and Mars is by square without an effective reception. There?s only one minor reception involved (Mars receives Mercury by triplicity; Mercury doesn?t receive Mars). That wouldn?t be enough to overcome the difficulties of a square, let alone a square to a naturally malefic planet in the 8th house of anguish and disappointment. Without a reliable reception, Mars is a destructive (or as Lilly calls it ?impediting?) planet in this chart. The square without reception brings disappointment and upset, and Mars is in its own sign so, overall, it?s clear he?s not interested and pursuing that relationship will only lead to grief. Although the Moon is applying to Mars by sextile it?s not enough to overcome the difficulties because both the Moon and Mars are in unfortunate houses (she?s debilitated in the 6th) and again there?s no reception to boost the flagging argument.

I judged the maid?s affection was alienated from the old man, and that she desired such a man as Mars, viz, a Captain of Soldier, etc and that she should be crossed therein by reason both Mars and Moon were in unfortunate houses: nor had Mercury or Luna any dignities where Mars was, or in the sign, and degree where himself was: all this was acknowledged with tears.

So the old man wants her, but she doesn?t want him. She wants a soldier, who doesn?t want her ?pretty much your standard ?tear-jerking? relationship horary :)

Lilly has derived his judgement simply and efficiently. He has a clear understanding of who is attracted to who, and who returns the interest or not - just from a firm understanding of the principles of aspects and reception.

If it was just a matter of looking at the dispositor, then any significator in Cancer is going to be incapable of extending love towards someone else isn?t it? We are always going to say they love their own self.

The only time the principle ?the planet loves the planet that rules the sign it is in? holds reliably true, is when a planet is in its own sign. Then it either shows self-respect or self-absorption depending on how it all falls out accidentally.

Hi Tom,

I should probably wait until you respond in full before jumping in but I would just like to make one comment.

Yes, I agree John is pretty much going his own way here. I don't mean to say that he made this up out of thin air, but rather that his use of reception is not in strict accord with the bulk and perhaps with no traditional authority.

If this is the case, he can't keep calling it traditional astrology. We have all seen John time and time again berate modern astrologers for making up their own rules. He appears to be guilty of this himself. If his idea of reception is not in accord with any traditional authority then it isn't traditional astrology and he is making up his own rules. They may work for him but from what I have seen they do not work in accordance with traditional rules.

Tom ? don?t you think it is more likely that John misunderstood the principle that Lilly was using, and then built up an approach with a misunderstanding at the bottom of it? That would make sense to me. I can remember when I studied horary on the QHP, no one really understood the principle very well at that time, even the teachers were confused about issues of who was receiving who and what it all really meant. That was compounded by the belief that reception always meant mutual reception, and mutual reception always meant in the same level of dignity ? so there was a tremendous amount of confusion about this and for a while I also assumed it was applied in the way John describes.

The point is, because of the other translations that have allowed us to clarify a lot of traditional issues, we can start to re-evaluate some of our old assumptions. Now we can see the principle a lot more clearly, and how it makes sense. So all those errors we attributed to Lilly don?t really exist ? they were our errors. Lilly might not have explained it as clearly as he could, but he would also have assumed that his reader had a fundamental understanding to begin with.

Once we identify a misunderstanding we have a choice. We can look again, and hopefully get a much more reliable understanding of what is being taught and the philosophy it is built upon so that we can use it even more effectively, (along with all the embarrassment we have to face confessing to students and colleagues that we actually made a mistake ? and believe me I have had to confess this to my students many times as my understanding of Lilly has developed: it?s never nice). Or we can think ? ?I have developed this misunderstanding too far now, developed a whole new approach based upon using it; so I have to stick to it and make a case for it?.

From the first point you made, it seems to me that you are verring towards the latter, but isn?t that the sort of thing you normally hate? You have often criticised Noel Tyl for reinventing the meaning of peregrine instead of understanding and maintaining its traditional application. Why is this any different?

Just to be clear, John?s teaching cannot enhance or develop traditional teachings because they strongly contradict the results of it. They can only be justified if we assume every traditional author had this wrong. John has said this explicitly (AA #20). When confronted with evidence that proves Lilly?s approach was entirely different, he says we must disregard what Lilly has taught, assume he was mistaken and generally unreliable, and use his approach instead. So there?s no suggestion of an enhancement for tradition; it?s a clear case of ?forget tradition ? use this instead?.

It?s a very hard thing to let go of assumptions. Every modern astrologer who begins to learn traditional techniques fights all those principles that reject what they easily and readily absorbed from modern authors. I certainly did ? I argued almost to the death until I finally saw sense and realised that none of it actually contributed to me reading a chart clearly. But you have to be prepared to keep your mind open to the fact that other, more powerful techniques exist, and to use them effectively you must explore them in their own terms and let go of some of your assumed beliefs that haven?t been critically tested.

I think that if you leave this a while, and then read through this all again; and then check out what John wrote in the Astrologer?s Apprentice no 20 ? along with all the arguments that he made for Lilly being an incompetent astrologer, (which he needed to declare in order to get the traditional understanding of this out of our heads and replace it with his own); and then read Lilly?s judgement again as he intended it to be understood, you will be able to answer the all important question ?does it work??

Another point you might note is that John?s approach doesn?t show the woman being attracted to the soldier: the closest you could get to that is to say that Mercury is in the triplicity of Mars ? John describes this as ?warm and comfortable, with no real passion? . So why was she crying? That may be the way soldier felt about her (providing she didn?t come on too strong), but not the other way around. By comparison Lilly?s analysis of the chart is effortless and fits in with the teachings of our other primary sources.