My impression is that John Frawley teaches reception in reverse to Lilly and this is where the confusion lies as a lot of people have learned horary from Mr. Frawley.

In her horary course, Deb taught us that, eg, Moon in Capricorn is well-received by Saturn because the Moon is a "guest" in Saturn's home. It doesn't so much have to do with love, as being well-disposed toward one who is in one's home, exaltation, term or triplicity.

Tara

Somewhere ^^ up there.

Don't confuse emplacement horaries with other horaries. You need an aspect for reception to exist. If there is no aspect, but a planet is in another planet's dignities, that's called generosity, not reception.

E.g. Jupiter in Libra, and Venus in Pisces. There is no mutual reception, even though Jupiter rules Pisces and Venus rules Libra, because there is no aspect. The planets are said to be in generosity instead.

Generosity is a condition where the planets can help each other out somewhat, but continuing with the host-guest analogy, generosity is more like a good neighbour than a host. It will water the plants for you while you're away, and keep an eye on the place, maybe even help with renovations, but you're not living in its house and under its protection.

Big difference there.

Thank you all for your input. I am sure this post is not only useful to myself but other students of horary who get stuck on reception!

I agree with Aglaya and those of you who mentioned that in love horaries the "love reception" may prove useful, but, otherwise, I am going to pretend that doesn't exist.

Olivia wrote:Somewhere ^^ up there.

Don't confuse emplacement horaries with other horaries. You need an aspect for reception to exist. If there is no aspect, but a planet is in another planet's dignities, that's called generosity, not reception.

.

That is why Lilly's and Frawley's approach aren't really diferent in terms of reception (as oposed to generosity), don't you think?!
If two main significators are placed in some or any of each other's dignities and if there is an aspect between them, then we have mutual reception in both versions. According to traditional sources- the planet "A" visiting the dignities of the planet "B" means that the planet "A" is actually interested in the planet "B" ("B" is received by the "A"). Frawley's explanation seems to be totaly oposite as he would suggest that this situation means that the planet "B" is actually interested in the planet "A" (as it is visiting its dignities and expressing its affection for the "A"). But the differences are only obvious in terms of generosity as, when there is mutual reception, whicehever way we approach it, the result stays the same- it's mutual.

Hi Tanit

There are a few confusing points made in this thread that make the principle seem complex. The article I wrote on this a few years ago was more theoretical and wordy than it now needs to be, because at that time very few people were understanding and advocating the correct approach. I'll try to find time to put something together which is more practical in its demonstration.
(On the one hand we have the modern influence of one author's creative but misleading theory, on the other we have the way the principle is described and used by all the traditional authors - I'm not sure this should even be called "a debate" anymore).
Deb

Tanit wrote:Thank you all for your input. I am sure this post is not only useful to myself but other students of horary who get stuck on reception!

I agree with Aglaya and those of you who mentioned that in love horaries the "love reception" may prove useful, but, otherwise, I am going to pretend that doesn't exist.

We can't let you understand it so easily....
What do you think of emplacement , mutual reception without aspect,one way reception and mutual reception in detriment (1st lord in 7th and 7th lord in 1st-obviously applying to an opposition)?

Keeping in mind that your question was not about perfection of the matter but interpreting the feelings of one for the other .

PD

aglaya wrote:

Olivia wrote:Somewhere ^^ up there.

Don't confuse emplacement horaries with other horaries. You need an aspect for reception to exist. If there is no aspect, but a planet is in another planet's dignities, that's called generosity, not reception.

.

That is why Lilly's and Frawley's approach aren't really diferent in terms of reception (as oposed to generosity), don't you think?!
If two main significators are placed in some or any of each other's dignities and if there is an aspect between them, then we have mutual reception in both versions. According to traditional sources- the planet "A" visiting the dignities of the planet "B" means that the planet "A" is actually interested in the planet "B" ("B" is received by the "A"). Frawley's explanation seems to be totaly oposite as he would suggest that this situation means that the planet "B" is actually interested in the planet "A" (as it is visiting its dignities and expressing its affection for the "A"). But the differences are only obvious in terms of generosity as, when there is mutual reception, whicehever way we approach it, the result stays the same- it's mutual.

They're very different, Aglaya.

You're trying to find a lost object. The ruler of 2 is in 1, close to the ascendant.

You're going to find the object.

That's an emplacement horary.

Most other types of horaries need something more than that. Even a love horary, with the ruler of 7 in 1 - you'd want to see a good aspect between L1 and L7. Or I would, anyway.

Okay, let's go back to Jupiter and Venus.

Venus is at 14 Sag, and Jupiter is at 14 Aquarius (if you use Egyptian terms, this gives each planet dignity by its own term, so they aren't peregrine). Jupiter receives Venus by rulership, and if it is a night chart, Jupiter also receives Venus by triplicity. Venus does not receive Jupiter.

So Jupiter is the host who is bound to extend his hospitality to Venus. Given the sextile, one-way reception is enough to bring the matter to pass, as a sextile or trine aspect by itself, provided the planets aren't peregrine, will usually bring about perfection. Squares will sometimes do it with a one-way reception, though mutual is stronger, and for oppositions - just give up and don't even try - if it happens you'll be sorry.

Somewhere I've got Bonatti's list in bullet-points, but I can't find it - so read the short passage here: http://www.horary.com/guests/horaryrh.html

Olivia wrote:Somewhere ^^ up there.

Don't confuse emplacement horaries with other horaries. You need an aspect for reception to exist. If there is no aspect, but a planet is in another planet's dignities, that's called generosity, not reception.

E.g. Jupiter in Libra, and Venus in Pisces. There is no mutual reception, even though Jupiter rules Pisces and Venus rules Libra, because there is no aspect. The planets are said to be in generosity instead.

Olivia, this may be correct with some authors - with Lilly, for example, it is not.

Lilly teaches that reception is only the position of another planet in a planet's dignity (or dignities), without the nesessitiy of aspects, on the contrary: He teaches that a matter can be brought to perfection by mutual reception only (CA, p. 112)!

This is in contrast to you and many autorities before the time of Lilly. They saw the need of aspects for a reception and they developed different and conflicting rules.

It is always a question of reference and it would be helpful to denominate the respective reference or author especially in the case of rules or terms.

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

pankajdubey wrote: We can't let you understand it so easily....
What do you think of emplacement , mutual reception without aspect,one way reception and mutual reception in detriment (1st lord in 7th and 7th lord in 1st-obviously applying to an opposition)?

Keeping in mind that your question was not about perfection of the matter but interpreting the feelings of one for the other .

PD

The problem as to Frawley's definition of reception is that he against every rule of the tradition (and without necessity in my opinion) includes the debilities into the term of reception. This is a complete contradiction to the classic where reception is only possible in the dignities.

The other problem is that Frawley interpretes reception in a new way, which also not has been teached by the classical authors in this way.

But a position in a house should never be called a reception and is not, neither by classical authors nor by Frawley.

We need Deb in here as a final arbiter, but I'm fairly certain that Lilly held with the people who went before him - reception did not exist without aspect.

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 meanwhile, we'll settle for Deb's article:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/reception.html