I?ve gone the article on reception and the ?Brief Comparison of the use of reception in horary? and I have a question.

Lilly sets forth several different situations where reception will either help or not. He compares situations where the lord of the ACS is in aspect with an evil planet (Saturn or Mars), an unfortunate planet (peregrine, retrograde, cadent, combust), or joined by a good aspect (sextile, trine) or a bad aspect (square, opposition).

Lilly says that he can?t come up with simple rules to cover every situation, and says that we have to ?well weigh the Querent his Condition.? My problem comes when you combine these different criteria.

My question is about a chart where you have the Sun applying by trine to Saturn. Saturn is in Leo, in its detriment, retrograde and cadent. The Sun is peregrine in Scorpio, but is angular. The aspect is applying. The querent is the Sun.

I think based on what Deb said that this aspect will come to nothing because Saturn doesn?t receive the Sun. Is that right?

Masha'allah seems to make a distinction, while not actually disagreeing with this. While not specifically talking about Saturn, I think he?s generally talking about destructive planets.

And should the lord of the house of life receive the lord of the house of death, this would be a weak reception. Nevertheless, the lord of the house of death will not completely destroy [the lord of the house of life], according to the command of God.

So using one definition Lilly would say that if the Sun receives Saturn, that Saturn is free to destroy, while using Masha'allah?s definition we?d say that the reception will protect the Sun, but only somewhat.

On a slightly different note, on page 185, Lilly says,

If reception be by Sextile or Trine, you may confide the matter will be effected;

Or if the Planet who receives be at that time well disposed, let the reception be by any manner of aspect, the matter is performed, be the aspect Square or Opposition;

If the aspect be Trine or Sextile, it performes the thing, whether the Significator be received or not; but provided, the aspect be not separated, but applying.

In the example I cited above, the Sun is well disposed (not combust, retrograde) and is angular, and it receives Saturn and the aspect is by trine. Or does this last quote not apply to aspects involving the malefics?

My interpretation of this aspect is that the trine will be one of those situations where

It signifies the perfection of the matter, though with wearinesse and much solicitation.

From the little that I read in Carmen, Firmicus Meternus' Matheseos and Bonatti, the worst aspect that a planet could have is a hard aspect (opposition or square) from undignified (detriment or fall) malefic (Mars or Saturn) while the malefic being strong (angular or elevated). This is made even worse if the planet being hit by the malefic is also undignified (detriment or fall), weak (cadent or low in a chart) and not received.

In your example sun is applying trine to Saturn and Saturn is undignified (detriment in Leo and retrograde) but weak (cadent). Sun (querent) is undignified (peregrine in Scorpio) but strong (angular).

If we look to the sun, it is strong (angular) but undignified (peregrine). I would say that the querent is in a strong position (angular) but at the wrong place/time (peregrine=nowhere), hence his strength in perfecting the matter is not going to do him much good because he is not in the right place or time (peregrine). The trine aspect (not square or opposition) is not totally damaging but the aspect is made by Saturn (greater malefic) who is also undignified (detriment) and weak (cadent). But Saturn is received by sun. Hence, Saturn is in Sun's house but Saturn is definitely not happy there (detriment).

This is like having the enemy (Saturn) in Sun's house but the enemy is beaten and weak (cadent) but still creating havoc (detriment, retrograde) to sun. The sun accomodates Saturn's behaviour because of the trine and reception.

Matters can be perfected by mutual application (very difficult) if sun is willing to accomodate Saturn's behaviour (the sun is giving charity here! though he might not be doing the right thing being peregrine) but whether Saturn is able or willing to accept Saturn's behaviour is doubtful. Saturn is a scarred and marred enemy who is just too proud to accept sun's terms.

[/quote]

Astrojin,

I totally agree with what you said, and I especially loved the way that you said it. Your choice of words was descriptive, helpful and strictly tied to the chart. Thanks!

Another level to what you said is that while the Sun is a friend to Saturn and gives to Saturn some nescessary warmth, Saturn is an enemy to the Sun and cools the Sun down, which the Sun doesn't like.

I think if the Sun were in some of its own major dignities, this would help a lot, and the Sun then would be "donating it virtue". I think that's the expression. Or if Saturn received the Sun, that would have been better.

Of all the definitions of receptions, I prefer the one outlined by Bonatti and explained by Zoller and Brady:-

For Bonatti a reception is actually giving (donating) virtues because when A receives B in his/her house (A's house), A would donate gifts to B (A = host, B = guest).

A receives B (i.e. A donates virtues to B) when B is in A's sign OR in A's exaltation sign OR in 2 of A's lower diginites (i.e. in A's triplicity and term or in A's triplicity and Face or in A's term and Face). Another thing, A and B must be in aspect (Ptolemaic aspects: Conj, Opp, Sq, Tri and Sext).

If at the same time, B also receives A, then they are in mutual reception.

The modern definition of mutual reception when A is in B's sign and B is in A's sign is not in mutual reception by the above the definition if they are not in aspect.

Why an aspect? A can only receive B (i.e. A can only donates virtue to B) if B is in A's house AND they see each other (see=aspect). Hence, if B is in A's house (sign, exaltation or 2 of A's lower dignities) but they are not in aspect, it shows only intention (B is interested in A) but no donation (A does not see B, no seeing = no aspect = no action).

Assuming Mercury is in Aries and Mars is in Virgo, they are in each other's sign hence in mutual reception by modern definition but they are not under the above definition because they are not in Ptolemaic aspect. Mercury and Mars are very interested in perfecting the matter but there will be no action as there is no aspect ceteris paribus.

Good applying aspect with reception is definitely encouraging.

Good applying aspect w/o reception would still perfect matter but not with the benefit of the other person in mind.

Bad applying aspect with reception eases the difficulty of perfecting (for any applying aspect can perfect matter but a difficult aspect makes perfecting more difficult hence reception makes it easier). It is difficult for both parties to perfect matter for some reason but reception tells us that they are not about to give up yet. Bonatti: "Reception abates all malice", Anima Astrologiae.

Bad applying aspect w/o reception makes perfecting difficult and the planets are also not making it any easier!

Oh, by the way, we also have anti reception. Bad applying aspect with anti reception (esp. mutual anti reception) = NO perfection!

An example of anti reception:

Mercury in Aries opposes Saturn in Libra. Saturn is strong in Libra (exalted) and Mercury is in the sign Saturn hates (Saturn is in Fall in Libra), so Saturn who happens to be strong is not going to help Mercury because Mercury is in his enemy's house (Saturn anti receives or rejects Mercury).

An example of mutual anti reception:
Mercury in Aries trines Saturn in Sagitarrius. They are in each other's enemies' houses. They mutually reject each other. The trine aspect would still perfect matter though (who says I can't work with the people I hate!!!).

So, with mixed receptions and mixed anti recceptions and aspects (and others), we have countless layers of interpreting a chart especially in fine tuning aspects.

A very misunderstood subject. I have had to read over and again both Boantti and Lilly to understand it.

I might add one other thing and that is on when the direction of the reception matters. It seems to only matter when one of the two planets involved is a malefic. In that case, you want the malefic to receive the other planet and not the other way around. In that case the malefic protects the other planet from the worst of its destructiveness.

From what I gather from Lilly, the direction of the reception doesn't matter if there is no malefic involved. It doesn't seem to matter even if the two planets are involved in a hard aspect, a square or opposition. And it doesn't seem to matter who receives who if one of the planets is retrograde, combust or peregrine.

Is all this right? I've looked at a lot of my charts, and what Lilly had to say and that's what I have come up with.

I know I was hung up on the idea that reception shows one-way interest, that if A is received by B, then A loves B, or the reverse that B loves A. In most cases that doesn't seem to matter. There was a lot of discussion about one of Lilly's examples, the one where the Gentlewoman asked an old man to marry. Everyone got hung up on the idea that the old man liked her, but she didn't like him, based on him receiving her. She declined to marry him and this was explained by the direction of the reception. But that was not the case. Lilly could tell that she wouldn't marry the old man based on her planet separating from his. The Moon also had separated from him as well. So the marriage didn't happen not because of the direction of the reception, but by the separating aspects. I think that if the aspects were applying the marriage would have happened.

Reception shows mutual interest, not a one-way interest.

Yes?

Mark, I agree with you, that mutual reception shows mutual interest.
Even if the situation is inherently difficult, planets in mutual reception make it easier for both parties to get what they want.

I did a chart a year or so ago about a friend of mine in a lawsuit and her ruler, venus, was in MR with mars, her opponent, and the suit settled. Interestingly, each was in its detriment, but that didn't seem to matter in this situation. The suit settled to my friend's benefit. The two significators, Mars and Venus, were not in any aspect, as Venus was in Aries and Mars in Taurus! (I correctly predicted the suit would be settled based only on the Mutual Reception.) Also, the Moon in Gemini was perigrine in the degree of the Nodes, and so was Jupiter which squared the Moon. The Moon was conjuct the querent's second house cusp and Jupiter ruled her eighth (her opponent's money.)

I also have a theory about planets in detriment: after looking at several charts (especially lately, with Mars in its detriment) I wouldn't necessarily interpret the detrimented Mars to indicate a person of bad character or temperment: I think a plant in detriment could simply mean someone in a weak position or at a disadvantage somehow. In a lawsuit such as this, both parties were somewhat disadvantaged.

I too have made a couple of sucessful predictions based on mutual reception w/o aspects. It is reception w/o aspects that I suspend judgement (without other indications). Mutual reception w/o aspects can still perfect matter because BOTH parties are willing.

In the example given by voyager girl, you would expect such a configuration to occur in a lawsuit.

1) No aspect between Venus and Mars (both parties do not "see"
each other eye to eye - indifferent, disagreement).
2) Both in detriment - both are weak
3) Venus in Mars' house and Mars in Venus' house, these 2 enemies
are in each other's house. It's like "I am not going to damage your
house, so you are not going to damage my house, let's just settle
this" because they are in mutual reception!

It's even better if both Mars and Venus are disposited by one planet (dispositor by sign, exaltation, triplicity, term or face) which indicates a common platform for agreement but MR by sign is a powerful positive indicator.