Mutual reception: what Anthony Louis has to say...

1
A while back I posted a general question about mutual receptions: such as the Moon in Libra in mutual reception with Venus in Cancer.

I was taught the following, as is stated on Anthony Louis' website:
"Some astrologers believe that mutual receptions give a way out by conferring exchange status, that is, if two planets are in mutual reception by sign or exaltation, either planet can be read back to the sign and degree position of the other as if they had exchanged positions in the chart. Mutual reception by triplicity, term, or face are weaker and probably do not confer exchange status."

But if that's true, then it might cause the reception placement of the Moon for example to be Void of Course... or square or conjunct a significator. Does anyone else have any experience using the "exchange status" rule for mutual receptions?

2
if two planets are in mutual reception by sign or exaltation, either planet can be read back to the sign and degree position of the other as if they had exchanged positions in the chart. Mutual reception by triplicity, term, or face are weaker and probably do not confer exchange status."

But if that's true, ...
Allow me to be as so bold to say: it's not true. This particular idea has no foundation at all in traditional astrology. It is, I think, the brainchild of Barbara Watters and it has no basis or underlying philosophy.

While it is sometimes difficult to get a grasp on mutual reception, it seems to me that it is best understood as the two planets helping each other or feeding off each other. If they swapped places, the influence of the houses would be reversed and possibly damaging. Let's say that Saturn is in Aries in the 1st and Mars is in Capricorn in the 10th. If the question has to do with getting a job, and we swap places, the answer goes from a strong possibility of yes (Mars asc ruler in exaltation in 10) to "no (Saturn in fall in 10)." If this suggestion is meant to be looked at metaphorically rather than literally, it doesn't make much more sense.

In the example given, Moon in Libra gets whatever assistance Venus in Cancer can give her, but the Moon does not make a magical mystery trip to Cancer and vice versa for Venus.

Ms Watters' idea, if it is in fact hers, is typical of a lot of ideas floating around in modern astrology. It is written down as though it is an accepted fact; it is taken as fact by subsequent readers and admirers, no one investigates the idea, and nothing is ever offered to verify the "fact," either philosophically or empircally or any other way legitimate or otherwise.

I'd put this one on the back burner with all due respect to Anthony Louis, a fine astrologer and a very nice man.

Tom

Mutual reception "swap"

3
Thanks, Tom, for your thoughts.

I've done several charts over the past year that involved mutual receptions and I have to say, allowing the two planets to "swap" places and even degrees, can get a bit confusing.

So in your experience, I should consider the two planets in mutual reception as giving aid or help to each other, but if the two planets are square or in opposition to each other (without using their reception placements) does that imply a negative answer? Or does the mutual reception negate that?

Sorry to be so obtuse about this, but I did a chart recently involving the reception placement I spoke about in the previous email. The Moon in Libra was in reception with Venus in Cancer. (Generally a good thing) but either way, the two planets would square each other, so how do I read that?

4
If you think swapping places is confusing wait until you read this. Some authorities claim there is no mutual reception unless there is also an aspect. So without the square, you have no mutual reception according to these folk. I'm not one of those, and if we had to depend on aspect there would be far fewer of these and some are probably impossible: Mars in Taurus, Venus in Aries for example, but that might be for good reason. It is another subject altogether.

Squares in traditional astrology are not question killers. They imply delay. Lilly called them imperfect enmity while the opposition was perfect enmity. In other words, the mr which is also square should bring the thing inquired about to pass (other factors permitting), but there may be delays before it does. Whereas an opposition (e.g. Jupiter in Gemini - Mercury in Sagittarius) would help things come to pass but the quesited may wish it hadn't happened.

So I woud think the mr you mention, (Moon in Libra - Venus in Cancer) would help bring about the event, but not as quickly as the quesited might like.

Now the question of orbs comes up if we include the aspect and what is separating from what or applying to what is also a factor. I would think aspect by sign is good enough at least in horary. A mutual reception with a wide aspect would not have the impact as a tight one in natal.

Someone, I think on this list, quoted Bonatti to the effect that reception mitigated all evil. The idea is that even two weak planets in mr is considered a plus. I don't know if that is true or not; I kind of doubt it, but it does indicate that this subject is a bit complex (one does not criticize Bonatti casually) and therefore you are not at all being obtuse when you ask about it. There are other opinions on this topic and I hope others answer with them.

Best

Tom

6
Someone, I think on this list, quoted Bonatti to the effect that reception mitigated all evil. The idea is that even two weak planets in mr is considered a plus.
I think he may have said something like that somewhere but Bonatti makes it very clear that MR is not always a good thing. He considers that MR by triplicity, terms or face alone is not enough to confer benefit and that there has to be at least two of the minor dignities involved. He says that a planet that is debilitated transfers its debilitation onto the planet that receives it. He also says that a planet in combustion or retrograde is not able to retain the virtue being offered. So no, MR is not always a plus.

This is all to be found in Liber Astronomiae. The reprint I have is the one done by Project Hindsight, around about page 154 or 155 I think.

Mutual reception with opposition

8
I just did a chart with Mars and Venus as the significators: they are in mutual reception (Mars in Taurus and Venus in Scorpio) but with Mars nearing retrograde motion, that means the two planets will ultimately oppose each other, I think. (I don't have an ephemeris in front of me.) Since this is a relationship question, should I take that to mean that's when a breakup might occur?

And even though the two planets are in their detriment, does the mutual reception negate that? (In other words, are they two planets in better shape because they're in MR?)

9
actually if the significators in the 1st and 7th houses they are mutually interested, but I dont know what Rx does to that Alignment, they will in fact be exact When Mars goes retrograde, so It would be interesting to hear that answer, if you go to the horary page on this forum, there is a relationship guide there that discusses a lot of this in pretty good detail, but I dont recall ever reading about Rx in this instance.

I did a relationship horary myself today and found myself mars in 7, but he Venus in 12th... so wondered about perfection and what might occur, it looks as though Venus will perfect a square with Saturn before making an aspect to mars so I dont believe that it will result in a relationship... but it would be nice to get some info on that aspect.

Granny

10
If the planets are unfortunate and the aspect is hostile, then reception can?t really help.

Lilly says on p.185:

"judge, if reception do intervene, whether it be by Square or Opposition aspect, for then if a Planet be evil disposed, the reception profiteth nothing; the less when he that is received is impedited"

Morinus (Bk 18, Ch.7) actually refers to Mars in Taurus and Venus in Scorpio as an example of reception where "the malignity of that influence is more increased than decreased", because the two planets are in detriment as well as opposition.

11
From
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/relationships.html

"If the application or translation is by square or opposition with reception, a relationship is feasible but the situation is difficult and there will be obstacles to overcome. Without reception this kind of aspect seldom promises a good result.

The 1st house ruler in the 7th suggests the querent is the more ardent of the two. Conversely, the 7th house ruler in the 1st shows the quesited to be most keen."

it also says the water signs are more lucky for relationships.

Deb, With this information in mind can you explain further please why it would be less than fortuitous, pretending that there wasn't that saturn square perfection in the way here, as I know it to be, lets say that it is Oct 1 when this question was asked and Venus and mars are at perfection at 23 Sco and Ars on the 1st and 7th cusp. so only really dealing with these two. from the information above I would think it a good sign? match?

thanks in adance for your thoughts!

Granny

12
Hi Granny,
If you read the posts that have already been published earlier in the thread you?ll probably find your answer. Having the two planets in opposition is rarely a good thing. Mutual reception might show they are willing to receive an interest in each other, but if they are both essentially debilitated as well as being diametrically opposed that?s hardly the basis for a harmonious relationship. Of course you have to look at the whole chart and there?s certain circumstances that might help out, but as a general principle I don't think you can describe this as a good sign/match.