johannes susato wrote:Your statement is a bit inconsistent as to the question whether or not an aspect is essential for a reception.

Perhaps I should have been more clear on separating reception from mutual reception. Historically reception requires an aspect. Mutual reception also requires an aspect, but if there is no aspect it is still useful and helpful and this is often called generosity (being technical) however Lilly in particular is not always great with technical nomenclature and so being more pragmatic he will say that mutual reception can occur with an aspect or not, but is not as powerful without.
I hope this is more clear.

I did not want to make Lilly "a demarcation of modern time"; this is not my point and I didn't say that.

Okay I misunderstood the point where you say: "Modern Approach (about or perhaps since Lilly): "
This seemed to me that you were making Lilly (or thereabouts) as a demarcation for the modern time.

But it is a fact that Lilly is the first authority who does not postulate an aspect for the reception. Previous to him only Ibn Ezra is the only authority accepting a reception without an aspect (assumed both planets receive each other in their dignities.

Right so if Ibn Ezra said it before Lilly we can assume that Lilly is not the first authority. Also with regards both planets receiving each other in their dignities, that's not reception, that would be mutual reception.
Let me give you another example:
Abu Mashar:
"....but reception with an application is stronger"
Clearly indicating that reception without an aspect is valid, but one with an aspect is stronger.

So we see that earlier astrologer allowed for mutual reception without an aspect, though viewed it differently. However, reception is, fundamentally, both in Lilly and in earlier authors, a description pertaining to two planets in aspect.

So what is the definition of reception in your opinion?

Right so to summarise, reception is a qualitative statement about an aspect. Reception occurs when two planets are in aspect and one of the planets is in the dignity of the other. The one that is in the aspect of the other is received by that other planet. Reception primarily occurs by a major dignity, or two lesser dignities. Major dignities are exaltation and domicile. Minor dignities are triplicity, term and face. A received planet is one that is catered to by the planet that receives it. It has access to its resources and is protected by that planet. Therefore, say, a malefic or planet signifying a malefic house (like Lord 6 or Lord 8 ) receiving another planet means that it protects it from some of the worse of its malice. On the other hand receiving those planets means that you are less likely to fight it off. In a sickness horary therefore it is better to have Lord 6 receive (and therefore protect) Lord 1, than have Lord 1 receive Lord 6.

Mutual reception occurs when each planet is in the dignity of the other. Mutual reception without an aspect is called generosity and generosity is favourable, in the sense that any mutual dispositorship would be, but is not as strong as mutual reception. To use an analogy reception would be like greeting the host planet at the door and throwing a banquet dinner for it. Generosity is like leaving the key under the mat and a microwave dinner ready in the fridge.

Thank you for your copious input, Paul. Our opinions seem to differ only a bit though still essentially in my opinion.

Paul wrote: Abu Mashar:
"....but reception with an application is stronger"
Clearly indicating that reception without an aspect is valid, but one with an aspect is stronger.

So we see that earlier astrologer allowed for mutual reception without an aspect, though viewed it differently.

Besides, do you really see an application not to be an aspect?

But I should like to focus on the difference in defining receptions. And here I see Lilly as a benchmark indeed. He is the first author - or one of the first authors at least - who give a definition without aspect, that means, a definition where an aspect is no precondition to approve a reception.

Lilly, CA, p. 112:
"Reception is when two Planets that are significators in any
Question or matter, are in each others dignity; as the Sun in Aries,
and Mars in Leo; here is reception of these two Planets by Hou-
ses; and certainly this is the strongest and best of all recepti-
ons. It may be by triplicity terme or face, or any essentiall dig-
nity; as Venus in Aries, and the Sun in Taurus; here is reception by triplici-
ty, if the Question or Nativity be by day: so Venus in the 24. of
and Mars in Aries, the 16. of Gemini; here is reception by terme, Mars being in the terms of Venus, and she in his termes.
The use of this is much; for many times when as the effect-
ing of a matter is denyed by the Aspects, or when the signifi-
cators have no Aspect at each other, or when it seemes very
doubtfull what its promised by square or opposition of the significators,
yet if mutuall Reception happen betwixt the principall signi-
ficators, the thing is brought to passe, and that without any
great trouble, and suddenly to the content of both parties."

Paul wrote:Historically reception requires an aspect. Mutual reception also requires an aspect, but if there is no aspect it is still useful and helpful and this is often called generosity (being technical)

The same term " generositiy" is used by Ibn Ezra too. In 'The beginning of Wisdom' (translated by M. Epstein), p. 125, as to a mutual reception (but obviously against the mainstream of his time and later, until to Lilly ?) he states expressis verbis that:
"even though they do not join nor aspect one another, there is reception between them."

But Ibn Ezra begins his definition of reception in general:
"Reception is when a planet joins, whether by conjunction or aspect, another planet, which is the lord of house, or (...)" (p.124)

paul wrote: However, reception is, fundamentally, both in Lilly and in earlier authors, a description pertaining to two planets in aspect.

After all I think we can both agree now that this statement is not very correct.

Johannes

Johannes,

(Ignore my reference to Abu Mashar, I think I misread his point. For reference I do see application to refer to an aspect, but I was demonstrating something else. But I think I misread him anyway so it's a moot point.)

I am aware of Ibn Exra allowing for generosity, but I had thought I had read of other authors similarly allowing generosity. But I can't seem to find the references so I'll concede I might be wrong on that one.

However my main point I was trying to convey is the difference between reception and mutual reception. Lilly only allows for mutual reception without an aspect. That's really the crux of the point I was trying to make. Reception, according to all authors up to and including Lilly, require an aspect for reception to occur. Some authors, Ezra and Lilly as examples, allowed for mutual reception without aspect, called generosity. Only Lilly, frustratingly perhaps, doesn't differentiate between these different terms. Ibn Ezra does.

The problem with Lilly's nomenclature is that he does not refer to mutual reception as mutual reception, when he describes what reception means he actually defines mutual reception only. Which is confusing and awkward of him.

The same term " generositiy" is used by Ibn Ezra too. In 'The beginning of Wisdom' (translated by M. Epstein), p. 125, as to a mutual reception (but obviously against the mainstream of his time and later, until to Lilly ?) he states expressis verbis that:
"even though they do not join nor aspect one another, there is reception between them."

Yes and it's possible that Lilly uses Ibn Ezra as a source.

However again, remember, that this 'reception is between them' actually means MUTUAL reception is between them. But really this isn't strictly true either, it's generosity. So Lilly is very sloppy with his technical terms, that was the point I was making.
This is a minor criticism of his of course because the importance is understanding the concepts he's conveying.

After all I think we can both agree now that this statement is not very correct.

Hopefully you'll see now that this isn't the case. Reception requires an aspect but Lilly is sloppy with how he defines reception. So when you compare what Lilly says about reception to what Ibn Ezra says about reception, they're referring to subtly different things as Lilly is not so technically accurate.

Lilly's definition of reception is really mutual reception, but within the same use of nomeclature he also allows for generosity. Rather than splitting these separate terms he just lumps them into one category, presumably for simplicity.


To summarise:

Ignore Lilly's techncial use of terminology and you'll be clearer.

Reception requires an aspect.
Mutual reception is also a reception, and therefore requires an aspect.
If two planets dispose of each other (ie mutual reception with no aspect) this is called generosity.

I think that if we enter into the discussion of generosity, we just miss the point of the topic, that is, again, Frawley's approach.

We know that Frawley's approach has at least something to it, in that some ancient authorities already considered generosity before him. But the real source of problem is that Frawley has it (reception) kind of backwards, when he implies that the received planet is actually the one that has to show love, when it would be the contrary...

Anyway, my opinion on the matter...

Reception seems to me to be about a host receiving a guest, and not about a "loving" relationship exactly (although we could apply the love analogy in another fashion).

Now, the celestial house of say, Mercury, is Gemini. So, if Mars enters Gemini, it (Mars) will be received by Mercury, or put another way, Mercury receives Mars. Still, Mercury can only catter to Gemini, and consequently, Mars, if it actually sees Gemini throught aspect. If it does not "see" Mars there, it has to at least "hear" it, through some of the other relationships, like antiscia, for example, or equal ascension. But these last conditions are only mitigating effects.

All in all, when a guest is received, it is the host that has to see to its wellfare, so, if the host is weak or maleficent, it will either be unable to help the guest or will even harm him, and this guest may, if lacking dignity, in turn, be also unable to help all those which are under his authority (those he himself disposes and are his own guests).

I tend to see a sign as a kingdom and the ruler as the king. If the king is strong (accident) and wise (essence), anyone that enters his domains will be well served, whomever they may be. On the contrary, if the kingdom has a weak and foolish king, he is entering an uncattered for land, and should watch out for itself.

Aspects are important not only because they show recognition, but there is a difference between a reception of an applying aspect and a separating one as well, when an aspect applies, it shows something to come, and the swifter planet is the one acting out, while the receiving planet will show goodwill towards the action coming to be.

Oh, for heaven's sake, this discussion is making my head spin, and not for the first time. Let me just ask this question of all of you so I can compare what I understand with you. In an horary I did today, Mars is in Virgo at about 12 degrees, Venus retro is in Gemini at about 22 degrees. Is there no reception because they are not within orb, or is there reception because they will meet in a square aspect, receive each other through Mercury, and Mars receives Venus through triplicity? Don't anybody get mad having to repeat themselves, because I really don't get it. Thanks

Well, that's one problem with theoretical discussions. There's no way we will come up with a general rule that will apply to every chart. Every chart is different.

I could't care less whether one planet receives another or who receives who. People already have proven to have different opinions on that. And people like to make and follow rules even if they never use those rules...

The bottom line is this: is this planet inclined to help that planet or not? With or without an aspect. That's all that matters in practical terms. That's all that reception means in practice. And that's why, in my opinion, Frawley's "simplistic" concept of love is so good to help us begin understanding receptions. If we love someone we will be inclined to help that someone will we not? If we hate them we will not care for them, right? Simple. Then we use our neurons to extrapolate from there.

If you show us a chart with a question I will give my opinion and will show you my approach to receptions. In practice, because theoretically this is indeed a confusion without end.

Lakewind wrote:Oh, for heaven's sake, this discussion is making my head spin, and not for the first time. Let me just ask this question of all of you so I can compare what I understand with you. In an horary I did today, Mars is in Virgo at about 12 degrees, Venus retro is in Gemini at about 22 degrees. Is there no reception because they are not within orb, or is there reception because they will meet in a square aspect, receive each other through Mercury, and Mars receives Venus through triplicity? Don't anybody get mad having to repeat themselves, because I really don't get it. Thanks

Mars is in triplicity, term and face of Venus, Venus receives Mars, because he is in her dignities. Modern authors accept a reception, but see below.

Venus is in no dignity of Mars, Mars does not receive Venus.
The Ancients postulate an aspect, so they do not accept a reception here.

There is no mutual reception because only one planet receives the other in his dignities.

Modern authors accept a reception, but for any horary effect there would be needed a further determination (for example a second reception = mutuall reception; or an aspect) which is not given here.

Johannes

So, Johannes, you are saying there is no aspect because the planets involved are not within orb of a square? Please be patient. I am sincere in my questions. Thank you, and thank you, dastars.

Oh, by the way, the question for this horary was " Does this person still have feelings for me, and if so what are they?" I was Venus, he was Mars.

Lakewind wrote:So, Johannes, you are saying there is no aspect because the planets involved are not within orb of a square? Please be patient. I am sincere in my questions. Thank you, and thank you, dastars.

You are right: they are still out of orbs. But I would prefer to say: out of their orbs (Lilly: the moyeties of their orbs) because with the tradition the orbs belong to the planets and not to conjunction or aspects. And so orbs do not change in regard to conjunction or aspects.

Johannes

Lakewind wrote:Let me just ask this question of all of you so I can compare what I understand with you. In an horary I did today, Mars is in Virgo at about 12 degrees, Venus retro is in Gemini at about 22 degrees. Is there no reception because they are not within orb, or is there reception because they will meet in a square aspect, receive each other through Mercury, and Mars receives Venus through triplicity? Don't anybody get mad having to repeat themselves, because I really don't get it. Thanks

Reception is very easy to understand. Just check if the planets are in aspect and if they are, check if one planet is in any of the dignities of the other planet.

So Mars is at Virgo at 12 degrees.
Venus is retrograde in Gemini at 22 degrees.

There is 10 degrees between them.
So we need to know what orbs you allow? If you use the traditional orbs with the relevant moeities then this is out of orb, because we have an orb of 8 degrees between them.

But just for the sake of explaining reception let's imagine they were not.

Let's say they were in orb.
The next question is whether Mars is in any of Venus' dignities.
And then whether Venus is in any of Mars' dignities.

So we use a table of dignities, let's use Ptolemy's for simplicity:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/essential_dignities.html

So we look to 12 Virgo and see if Venus has rulership over anything and if so then we know that Mars is in some of Venus' dignities.
Venus has diurnal triplicity rulership at 12 Virgo
Venus has term dignity at 12 Virgo
Venus has face dignity at 12 Virgo
But venus is also in fall through all of Virgo.

So Mars is definitely in the dignities of Venus. Therefore Venus will receive Mars. To put it another way Venus will play host to Mars. Mars is in a place that Venus has power or responsibility over and so Venus will cater or aid or protect Mars' interests. Of course it's also from the place of Venus' fall so this may greatly impede Venus' willingness or ability to do this effectively.

Looking at Venus, she is in 22 Gemini.
We want to know if Mars has any rulerships there.

It doesn't. Therefore Mars will not receive Venus.

So in total we have it that Venus is receiving Mars, but perhaps by doing so is opening itself up to the effects of a malefic planet, and receiving a planet from the place where it has fall - although it is probably countered by the triplicity, term and face.

Thanks all. I don't know why I can't absorb the traditional concept. Probably because I read Frawley first.
You'd think my natal mercury was in a fixed sign, but it'snot. Just retro!