Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello, Jogi

You wrote:

Bonatti gives several examples about reception and for him it seems possible for a planet to receive another one although being in his detriment or fall. As an example he states: "Or the Moon was in the said third degree of Aries, and the Sun [..] was in the eight or ninth degree of Gemini (or Cancer or Leo in front of her), or in the eight or ninth degree or Aquarius (or Capricorn or Sagittarius behind her): so the Moon was being joined to the Sun by aspect, and he was receiving her from his own exaltation, and was committing his own strength to her."

Here is another quote from Bonatti that clarifies this issue, I believe

"The Ascendant was Leo and there was a question about marriage, whether it would be perfected or not, and the Sun or the Moon (which signifies wives) was joined by Saturn from Aries which is the fall of Saturn. Even though the aspect as it is in itself is with reception, nevertheless Saturn does not perfect the matter; to the contrary it impedes it so that the matter is not perfected; not only does it impede, it even brings the matter forth to destroy it if it can. And if it were joined to the significator [of the querent] from Cancer or from Leo, it would do the same because either of these is a fall for Saturn. It is similar if the significator of any matter, or the Moon is joined by the Sun from Libra which is his descension, or Aquarius which is his fall, because then the Sun cannot receive any of these and so it destroys the matter and does not permit it to be perfected."

You wrote:

He gives another example about Mars, receiving the Moon from a peregrine position in Gemini, where Mars is able to receive the Moon and at the same time commits "to her his own virtue and disposition".


There are also some interesting information in Masha`allaha`s "On Reception". In Chapter 8 he says: "If there were a malefic in the sign of the Midheaven, who had no dignity in it, and it received the Lord of the Ascendant or the Moon, the matter will be perfected; and if it will not receive one of them, it will not be perfected."

As far as I know, not one of the "ancients"ever said that a peregrine planet was unable to receive another one and Bonatti also mentions only detriment and fall as being able to annul its 'receiving potential' so to speak.

What good is a reception bringing the perfection of a desired thing if it is nevertheless destroyed in the end, as is signified by the receiving planet's position in its detriment/fall?

Goran

Andrew Bevan wrote:I'm sorry I am such a late-comer to the discussion. It must be a topic of great interest.

Now imagine how "forum-youngsters" like myself and others who joined only a few years ago, must feel!
Hence this question:
should we, to get the best understanding of reception, take up Lilly's CA, or is it better to start with earlier writers (if available...)?

With all our languages and various cultural backgrounds - should it be considered a hazard or a gift?

Maybe we should all go back to college and study Latin, at least (as Margherita does). I for one, h?ving learned Latin at the time, just bought myself a real good dictionnary (Latin-dutch). As a result, I have realised already that what I thought to remember a latin word meant, may as well be completely wrong!

(N?t) Just for entertainment, I looked up commissio dispositionis:
- commissio: the joining, the combining, the unifying (of 2 rivals)
- dispositio: planning, distribution, sharing, division, management
So, a planet who commits his disposition, joins its way of managing things with the other planet, unites its planning with the other.
That does not sound as compelling or binding, as I always have understood the latin expression or even the english rendering (which is like exactly the same words...) ???

Hi Goran,

I think this is a quite common problem with these ancients ? from time to time they just leave us out in the rain with their contradictions and ambiguity.

The first contradiction (at least for me) occurs, when I compare your quotation with my former one, where Bonatti gives a list of the signs in which a planet could be and at the same time receive another one. E.g. with Mars being in Cancer and nonetheless receiving the Moon in Aries and thus committing his virtue and disposition to the Moon.

I think the second contradiction is in the following passages of the same text that you cited above. A few sentences later Bonatti says: ?And may you know the detriment of whatever planet [you are dealing with]: nor does any aspect suffice (unless reception intervenes), that will break its malice.?

And on the next page (p. 366): ?Indeed if he were received, it signifies that the matter ought to be perfected with a good perfection, unless he who is receiving him were impeded by fall or combustion or retrogradation; because even if it comes to be, it is not be perfected by a good perfection (as [it would be] when it is not impeded).?

Ben`s footnote says: ?This paragraph suggests that a planet can still receive if in fall, retrograde or combust ? but it will not be an effective reception?.

Another hint we can find on page 378-379 where Bonatti writes: ?May you always understand this: if those conjunctions come to be without reception (because with reception it will be perfected, even if with weariness)??. Under these conjunctions are also ?badly disposed? malefics, where the position of the malefic in his fall or descencion is a part of (besides being peregrine, retrograde, combust etc.).

That`s the way I understood it so far: reception with detriment/fall is possible as well as perfection ? but the outcome is just not the way you hoped for, or it comes to be with anger, fear, grief, weariness, or some other additional problems. Maybe you only get 50% or less instead of 100% - but you get something.

Hello Jogi

You wrote:

The first contradiction (at least for me) occurs, when I compare your quotation with my former one, where Bonatti gives a list of the signs in which a planet could be and at the same time receive another one. E.g. with Mars being in Cancer and nonetheless receiving the Moon in Aries and thus committing his virtue and disposition to the Moon.

The contradictions do exist, no doubt about that, but I think they are more of a purely nominal, not factual nature.
Moreover, I think that we were referring to Mars in Gemini at the beginning, not Mars in Cancer?
Even if a planet in its debility does receive, its reception doesn't bring anything positive into the situation

Ben`s footnote says: ?This paragraph suggests that a planet can still receive if in fall, retrograde or combust ? but it will not be an effective reception?.

- if the reception is not effective, then it means something like "as if it weren't there at all" sort of thing, right?
I think here we have something to do with what may be called a 'distinction without a difference.'
A planet retrograde or combust(or even worse, both) would return the light sent to him by the applying planet or in the case the combust/retrograde planet were the applying one, it would get its own light returned.

Goran

Earlier I wrote about ?the prospect of being able to receive in a place of debility? being a mistake. It just occurred to me that maybe that comment has triggered some of this recent discussion. In case it did I should clarify that I don?t think a detrimented planet is unable to receive; what I don?t agree with is the modern notion of ?negative reception? ? that a planet can ?receive? another into its sign of detriment, or that we can have something called ?mutual deception/rejection?. My point is that a planet which is out of dignity cannot receive another into that place. So a planet in fall can receive, but it can?t receive into its fall.
Thanks Goran and Jogi for your useful references.

Hi Hervaro
Lilly?s use of reception is quite close to Bonatti?s. The principle is a little clearer in Bonatti?s text I think, but Lilly?s chart examples are always useful.
Regards
Deb