I don't have Ben's translation - but I expect it's somewhat like James Holden's. Hebrew sentence structure tends to read a little bit sing-songy in English, but again - I'm familiar with it.

It's not that I hate Lilly with a fiery passion, not at all. I just sometimes wish he hadn't written as if he'd been being paid by the word, you know?

Thanks a lot, Yuzuru, for the very interesting quotes of another authority.

But also this quote of Sahl does not verify Bonatti's teaching that a planet positioned in his own debility could not receive another planet. I wonder if there is any ancient writer at all.

Sahl's "enemies" clarify that a planet can be received only in a dignity of the receiving planet and not - as some authors claim today - in his debility too. And while not in its fall as Sahl says in his examples how then in its detriment?

Who's translation did you quote, please?

Best regards

Olivia wrote:It's not that I hate Lilly with a fiery passion, not at all. I just sometimes wish he hadn't written as if he'd been being paid by the word, you know?

But his definition of mutual reception is outstanding, isn't it?

"Reception is when two Planets that are significators in any Question or matter, are in each others dignity;(...)" (CA. p. 112)

If you look at his examples, Johannes, I think you'll find that mutual reception always involves an aspect. It may have simply been taken as read there - though yes, Lilly is a little bit confusing on the point.

And you can find Sahl on reception at google books - go here and then go to page 18 (end of page 17, well, the last line is where it starts):

http://books.google.com/books?id=i9g-_J ... q=&f=false

It's the Holden translation, and Sahl says that the minor reception is also the opinion of Masha'allah (Messahalla in the text, I think). It makes sense - Sahl might even have known Masha'allah when Sahl was young - they weren't that far apart historically speaking.

If you read Lilly and take him by what he is saying you'll find, that he is not confusing at all. He is simply splitting aspects and reception. Thus for him an aspect is not essential for a reception. Like Morin he sees reception (not only the mutual) simply as the position of a planet in another planets dignity.

Typically he states an aspect and then possibly a reception (the position of one planet in the other's dignity, or the position of both planets in each other's dignity - mutual reception):
"(...) the application of the Moon to the Lord of the Ascendant, though by Opposition, yet with Reception, (...)"

I know, Olivia, your - and Deb's - understanding of Lilly's definition is another . . .

Johannes, if your listening English is as good as your writing English (I don't know how else to put that), then go and watch the Rob Hand workshop on reception at youtube - it's here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3k86s3OViM

He does use natal charts and not horary to illustrate his point (though reception is reception is reception, it doesn't matter if it's natal or horary), but he does speak modern English (yay!), and he also quotes a lot of ancient authorities.

It's a couple of hours long, but it is really good, and maybe it will help a little.

Oh, I just see your valuable Link, Olivia - thank you very much!!!

I won't study Sahl tonight - but weekend is coming . . .

Of course I understand the pre-Lilly definitions of reception. But there is a shift or change in the conception of reception in my opinion beginning with Lilly.

And unmistakably and definitely with Morin nearly at the same time (Astrologi Gallica being published 1661, 14 years after Lilly's first edition of Christian Astrology in 1647).