However, each planet is in its detriment: Venus in Aries, Mars in Taurus. But I'm thinking, don't these two planets have to be in their detriments to be in mutual reception in the first place?

No, they don't have to be in their detriment. Venus can be in Cancer, for example, which is the triplicity of Mars, and Mars can be in Pisces, which is the exaltation of Venus. Or Venus can be in Capricorn and Mars can be in Pisces, both in each other's exaltation.

I don't remember the chart or whether there was an applying aspect between significators. Generally, if there is no aspect, benefits from reception can be difficult. Most traditional authorities will say that reception can only occur when the planets are in aspect. I know Lilly says it is possible to get a positive outcome without aspects if reception is good. I don't think the idea of each planet in its detriment negates that if there is a positive aspect. It just makes it more difficult. Even thought they show a willingness to cooperate with each other, they are in a weakened position to do so. For example, he may want to give the money back but doesn't have it. If he doesn't have it, there is not a lot she can do. I am not relating this to your specific chart but just a general example.

I probably would not have read a yes simply based on the reception between Venus and Mars. I would think there had to be more to it.

Sue, of course you're exactly right: I forget about the reception by exaltation.

I'm wondering if the fact the two significators in mutual reception though debilitated, simply signified the animosity between the two parties, even though they finally settled the case?

If it were a relationship/love horary, I'm not sure I would have read this as a yes, given the detrimented planets, but now I'm not so sure.

I have the chart in front of me and it's interesting because I realize now that the querent is represented by Venus and not by Mars, as I'd initially remembered. (But that makes more sense now.. the querent is a woman.)

Nonetheless, both Mars and Venus are in her 12th house! But Mars, the significator of the opposing party, is coming to conjunct her first house in only two degrees. I'm not sure exactly when the suit was settled, but I'm wondering now if settlement offers were made two months after she'd asked the question. The moon is in the first house, in Gemini, and will sextile her ruler, Venus in 9 degrees. As I remember it, I learned about the settlement either last August of 2004, or at Christmas of last year. If it was around Christmas, the 9 degrees could represent 9 months for the settlement to be paid from the time she asked the question.

Also, Pluto in Sagittarius is in her 8th house, other people's money, but the moon will oppose it in 8 degrees.

All I know is when I set this chart I interpreted the answer as a yes, based primarily on the reception between the two significators. Another indication of the yes answer might be that the Part of Fortune exactly trines her ruler, Venus, in this chart.

P.S. the lawsuit involved a defamation/libel charge and the Moon in Gemini and Mercury in Pisces in mutual reception with Jupiter in Virgo seems to describe that! (Jupiter rules the 8th house and Mercury rules the second.)

Hi Tom,

Sue has answered most of your points but there are a couple of lingering issues that I?d like to clear up. On Lilly?s explanation of the significators you write:

Lilly's explanation is almost non-existant. He tells us, that Mercury is her only significator, and then uses the Moon.

I don?t understand why this point is being so laboured. JF made a big deal out of this, and his argument has already been raised and answered earlier in the thread. Lilly always used the Moon as a co-significator. We don?t expect him to explain this every time he writes out a judgement, (just as we don?t expect him to explain why he?s using Mercury as ruler of the ascendant). When Lilly says

The querent hath Mercury only for her significator

he simply means that she has no additional co-significators such as planets in the 1st house or co-rulers of the first house. Lilly would consider these as standard practice and if there were any that were relevant he would point them out. There are none, so the querent has only Mercury - and of course the Moon as a co-significator in every question.

Deb writes, but this is for Sue, too:
Quote:
Secondly, I don?t advocate the use of Venus or the Sun as secondary significators in relationship matters, because I think they are only applicable under certain circumstances.

We cannot have this all ways. If we claim that we are following a tradition, but are free to disregard what we feel can and should be disregarded (no problem with this from me), but then criticize others for not following the tradtion and say they cannot call themselves tradtionalists or criticize moderns, then we're on shakey ground.

Sue has already given the most important response to this. In addition, I don?t say that Lilly should be disregarded but that in my view (and I was clear about this being my own opinion in the original post) Lilly uses these planets as natural significators, so I don?t feel they need to be applied in every relationship question.

Where I differ from Lilly, I try to do what Lilly did when he differed from his sources, which is to point out my own views whilst acknowledging that other views exist. I also don?t believe that I have criticised John Frawley for not following tradition because that is not my interest. I?m more concerned about the misrepresentation of traditional techniques or Lilly?s work.

Far too much criticism has been contrived out of points that don?t exist in this horary. Even the first sentence, as clear as it is, seems to have given rise to a conspiracy theory. And incidentally, although Lilly doesn?t use co-rulers very often, it is a fact that he and other traditional authors would consider them if it made sense overall and the degree of the cusp was very late (see for example ?Whether the Sick would live or die?" CA pp 289-290). Yet JF writes:

?There is no such thing as a co-ruler: this is a modern abomination?. (H.T., p.30)

Here?s another approach I don?t personally advocate. Is it always useful? Debateable. Is it modern? Clearly not. Is it an abomination? Of course not. It certainly is not a ?modern abomination? and to suggest that it is, in such authoritative terms, is misrepresentative and again projecting criticism (this time towards the ?moderns?) for something they didn?t do. There is a big difference between someone suggesting that, according to their own experience, the use of co-rulers generally detracts more than it adds; and someone stating that there is no such thing except as a modern abomination. Any astrologer can legitimately make the former comment; the latter is patently wrong and begging contradiction. John has taken the same approach with reception. He doesn?t merely discard Lilly?s technique or offer his as an alternative; he suggests that there is no such thing as the way Lilly uses reception ? again, he?s begging contradiction.

I also don?t see why we should we consider that this horary has little in the way of ?concrete delineation? because it is less than 300 words. It is succinct and to the point. It doesn?t need more words because it is so clearly and efficiently judged.

Hi Roy,

I think your property analogy works well and it?s important to consider the issue of reception outside of romantic relationships because it has such a broad application in business matters. Traditional authors generally described the effects of reception in terms of property ownership because it explains why the dispositing planet is so amenable to the tenant ? it doesn?t want problems occurring in its own territory; so if they exist and it can help, it will. The aspect can be seen as the request for attention and the reception can be seen as the motivation to give it.

BTW, Whilst I was away I listened to one of Rob Hand?s taped lectures on reception and he places great emphasis on the dispositor, (when aspected by a planet in its sign), becoming the receptacle of the visitor?s influence. I can?t do justice to the way that RH expresses this by writing about it briefly because he takes such trouble to explain the philosophy in relation to Aristotelian principles of becoming and being. But it is a very interesting and informative lecture. I would recommend it to anyone interested in exploring the traditional application of reception. I received a copy as a gift from a friend but I believe it is available from the AA?s Sagicassette library ? Y261 'Receptions, A Way Of Integrating The Chart'.

See http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/pub/cas ... ape90s.htm

Hi Voyagergirl,

Lilly?s practical use of mutual reception is generally to show that both parties have a need to make a deal with each other, and that they get benefit by doing that. Morinus, on the other hand, is much more resistant to the idea that planets that are debilitated and in MR can bring benefit to each other, and in fact he considers the consequences to be harmful. I think it all depends on the circumstances and the other factors in the chart. For example, I would agree that this kind of MR is much more useful for settling disputes, where we can account for the animosity and the divisiveness of the opposition aspect, than for the prospect of developing a relationship, where we really don?t want to see any prospect of division or opposition in the long term potential of the relationship.

Quote:
?There is no such thing as a co-ruler: this is a modern abomination?. (H.T., p.30)

The "modern abomination" is making Mars and Pluto "co-rulers" of Scorpio or Jupiter and Neptune as "co-rulers" of Pisces, and I have to agree that is an abomination, but since moderns and traditionalists look at rulerships differently, moderns seem to find some sense in it.

On the other hand, something I picked up from Morinus is to look at the exaltation rulers of the cusps as well as the domicile rulers (I'm speaking of nativities not horary). I think this has merit under the right circumstances and I would not look at this sort of "co-ruler" as an abomination.

Tom

Yes I can see that argument but that isn?t what John is saying. I should have given more of the quote to have made that clear in the first place. On page 30 of his Horary Textbook JF writes:

?A house has one ruler and one ruler only. This is the planet that rules the sign on the cusp. This is so even if that cusp is at 29.59 degrees of its sign. There is no such thing as a co-ruler: this is a modern abomination.?

He then talks about the planet ruling another sign in that house possibly having significance but only if the concept of next is relevant to the question. He?s not talking about the modern planets as co-rulers, just planets that rule the signs inside the houses. On the next page he re-affirms that the ruler of the next sign round will never be co-ruler of that house, but says it can become the sole ruler if the cusp-ruler is already busy doing something else. (So if we ask about a job and Mercury rules the 1st and the 10th, we can take the second sign ruler to signify the job should we need to find an aspect to give an answer.)

None of this demonstrates Lilly?s use of Mars as the co-ruler of the 8th house in his ?sick live or die?? question. Here Lilly refers to Mars as part ruler of the 8th house and explains that his second argument for death was based upon Mars afflicting the ascendant whilst being ?almost lord of the whole eighth house? (the 8th house fell from 27.37 Pisces to 22 Aries.) So Lilly is using it in the way John claims is a modern abomination. And I have seen other traditional authors use co-rulers in this way too.

My point was similar to your last comment, and that some of the criticisms of alternative approaches that precede explanation of his own are unfair. As are his criticisms of Lilly. No one has a problem with John setting out his own arguments, of course.

Hi,

Sorry to barge in after it?s all gone quiet here, but I have been prompted to do some reading/thinking on this subject by an email I received on this subject.

I have been looking at William Lilly?s Christian Astrology and also Al Biruni?s Book of Instruction in the Elements of the Art of Astrology. When I say having a look I don?t mean reading with fine tooth comb from cover to cover so if I have missed something I am very happy to be corrected (politely of course!).

It seems from looking at Al Biruni that there is nothing too definite about ?who likes who? in respect to receptions.

On page 312 he seems to suggest that a planet being in another?s dignity shows a two way respect. That figures, you?re not going to be a guest in my house unless we both like each other. If the reception is mutual it is just heightened.

William Lilly contradicts the ancients.

On p304 he writes on the Aphorisms of ALKINDUS (Arabic philosopher Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi) Touching Marriage:

?The Lord of the seventh in the ascendant, the party desired loveth best: The Lord of the ascendant in the seventh, the Querent loveth best ? ?

On Page 317 ?Contrary to all the rules of the Ancients, I have ever found, that when the Lord of the seventh hath been in the ascendant, the querent hath loved most, and when the Lord of the ascendant was in the seventh, the quesited loved best.?

I know this is not strictly a treatment of receptions, but obviously lord 1 over in the 7th means lord one in the sign ruled by 7th so there is a very close correlation here.

Looking at what appears to me to be the only relationship question dealing with receptions in Christian Astrology the dear old Lady, if marry the Gentleman desired.

First Lilly talks of the poor condition of the Moon, then looks for ?good? things about the Moon. He talks of mutual receptions with Sun and Jupiter but this doesn?t help us distinguish much since they are mutual receptions. Still he seems to imply that because Saturn is in the sign of the Moon?s exaltation and because Jupiter is in the sign of the Moon?s rulership this is a beneficial position. I know sometimes the style of the writing can be difficult so it could just be one interpretation but that is what I seem to have picked up from it.

I must point out that this chart was covered by John Frawley in his course, but now revisiting it a few years later, the testimony seems very clear as he explained it to me.

The gentleman had been a long time an earnest Suitor and Saturn is in the sign ruled by Venus (natural ruler of Woman, although I appreciate not everyone uses this significator in relationship questions) and in the sign where Moon is exalted. This strikes me to make sense if he was really into her. Furthermore Saturn right in the middle of a fixed sign (to my learning) shows this has been a long time earnest feeling, no change here, nor any change of heart about to happen. This is probably true ? his heart has not changed although perhaps his head has ? it?s getting hot now, approaching Mars, probably at her audacity at giving him an absolute denial.

She is the one who has changed, but to say she has started exalting him strikes me as odd. He is ?but mean, and not tall, or very handsome, his visage long and uncomposed, a wan, pale or meagre complexion ? his eyes fixed, ever downward, musing, stooping forward ?. ?. There?s even more, but I won?t go on for fear of putting you off your next meal. I?ll just say that where I come from ?he?s no? braw?. I realy doubt very much that her feelings towards him have changed.

Okay so that?s exaltation dealt with, now, in the true spirit of mixing art with discretion, let?s consider desperation. Her significator has changed ? it has recently moved into the sign ruled by the Moon. It may be adding too much conjecture to say it is moving from sign ruled by Lord 11 and all the romantic ideals of knights in shining armour. In any case, now she is governed by the Moon and what is happening to the Moon? It is about to go into it?s detriment. Yes, there?s none of us getting any younger! I think it is more her realisation of this fact, rather than her suddenly starting to exalt this man, that makes her a bit worried that she might have to take what she can get.


Unfortunately we don't have too much to go on other than this chart in terms of relationship questions dealing with receptions.

Thanks for getting me thinking/reading - it's been an interesting process!

Hi Susan,

It seems from looking at Al Biruni that there is nothing too definite about ?who likes who? in respect to receptions.

That?s very true. I?m not sure if you have seen it but there is an article offering definitions and explanations on reception by a variety of primary sources at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/reception2.html . AlBiruni?s is probably the least detailed and of course there is the added disadvantage that we don?t have charts to demonstrate how he used it in practice. (In fact I don?t think I?ve seen any chart judgement by Al Biruni. If anyone knows of any with an English translation I?d be really interested.)

On the other hand, Abu Ma?Shar and Masha'allah gave more detailed explanations and Masha'allah wrote an entire treatise on it. His book, On Reception, translated by Rob Hand, is well worth exploring to examine an early basis of the technique.

One argument I have been keen to make is that reception is not the final word on the matter of who ?likes? who. It may show an inclination to be agreeable, but not necessarily one borne from desire, loving or liking - which is much more apparent from other indications, such as the application of the planets involved. If needed, I can expand, but don?t want to make my post too long and bore everyone to death with this!

William Lilly contradicts the ancients.

On p304 he writes on the Aphorisms of ALKINDUS (Arabic philosopher Ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi) Touching Marriage:

?The Lord of the seventh in the ascendant, the party desired loveth best: The Lord of the ascendant in the seventh, the Querent loveth best ? ?

On Page 317 ?Contrary to all the rules of the Ancients, I have ever found, that when the Lord of the seventh hath been in the ascendant, the querent hath loved most, and when the Lord of the ascendant was in the seventh, the quesited loved best.?

It wasn?t unusual for Lilly to venture his own opinions on rules that he perceived as traditional. We can?t imagine that such an experienced astrologer as Lilly would have no opinions of his own. But he did us a favour when he distinguished his own opinions from the traditional view, so we would know to weigh up the merits of both perspectives. This is one of the areas where I place more value on the ancient view than Lilly?s innovation. Not simply because of my own experience or any personal inclination, but also because, as a whole, Lilly?s text demonstrates that a significator placed in the house of the opposing party shows the person represented by that significator being available to the other party, or having a will to deal with them.

I know this is not strictly a treatment of receptions, but obviously lord 1 over in the 7th means lord one in the sign ruled by 7th so there is a very close correlation here.

I actually do think this is a separate issue. What you have suggested would only be the rule if all houses were 30 degrees and all horaries started with zero degrees on the ascendant. You will very often get the 1st-ruler in the 7th house, but not in the sign ruled by the 7th-house ruler.

Looking at what appears to me to be the only relationship question dealing with receptions in Christian Astrology the dear old Lady, if marry the Gentleman desired.
?
I must point out that this chart was covered by John Frawley in his course, but now revisiting it a few years later, the testimony seems very clear as he explained it to me.

Let me just clarify again that my interest is not in arguing against John Frawley?s approach per se, (also, it?s irrelevant to me whether it was proposed by John Frawley, Alan Leo or Liz Greene). But this thread began with a question of whether John Frawley?s description of reception is apt for the traditional sense of it, which is often presumed to be the case, particularly since Frawley demonstrates it against Lilly?s charts, and declares an interest in illuminating Lilly?s methods.

It seems bizarre to me, that we use Lilly?s examples to demonstrate John Frawley?s approach in which he contradicts Lilly?s own approach! Can you imagine any other situation where we?d be encouraged to study the works of a traditional author and learn his methods - not by endeavouring to understand what the author actually wrote, but by dismissing that and generating the same judgement using another technique instead? If I were to engage in a study of Morin?s methods, I would naturally assume that the techniques used by Morin take centre stage! If I were to enter a study of the classical charts of Vettius Valens, I would expect to be taught to evaluate the classical approach - I wouldn?t consider that it was doing justice to my understanding of Valens to be persuaded to come to similar conclusions using the methods of Dane Rhudyar. I don't see this as being any different.

The gentleman had been a long time an earnest Suitor and Saturn is in the sign ruled by Venus (natural ruler of Woman, although I appreciate not everyone uses this significator in relationship questions) and in the sign where Moon is exalted. This strikes me to make sense if he was really into her.

So many of the arguments raised in defence of Frawley?s explanations on Lilly?s charts hinge on the need to take Venus as a significator for the woman asking the question. But this is a presumption that requires us to ignore what Lilly actually writes - he has declared the significators he has taken for the woman in this chart and they don?t include Venus. He has also qualified them by matching them up to her physical description.

I know you admit that not everyone uses this signification in relationship charts, but without the assumption that Lilly reliably used it, there really is no support for the argument that Frawley?s approach holds true in Lilly?s examples. The implication is that a planet 'loves the planet who rules the sign it is in', and if we use Venus to signify the woman this shows (according to said theory) Saturn loving the woman. So we have the answer, never mind what Lilly considered significant. To establish whether it is reliable we only have to turn to Lilly?s next relationship chart on the following page: ?If she should marry the man desired?? (CA., p.389).

Here we have the significator for the man in question ?near the sextile of Venus?. But Lilly didn?t see this as an argument for the man being attracted to the querent; rather, it was an indication that the man had been ?tampering with another?. So we can dismiss the view that the man?s significator making a positive connection with Venus necessarily shows him attracted to our female querent. And if that is not a reliable rule, there?s no point debating whether his significator in the sign of Venus shows it either.

Venus might be relevant for our querent; it might show another woman, or it might not have any great relevance at all, everything considered. Lilly was much more inclined to let the symbolism speak for itself and place the emphasis on planetary placement, fortitude and movement. I just think we learn so much more about Lilly?s charts if we let him lead the explanation of them and concentrate on making the effort to understand the points that give us pause for thought. Where he does use reception it is very illuminating, especially in demonstrating the understanding of older authors.

I?m glad the discussion has aroused your interest. Hopefully we can all keep our minds open and remain interested in what has yet to be discovered in other works which are coming up for translation.

Regards
Deb

Edited to fix link

I've said pretty much all I have to say on this issue, but ...

It wasn?t unusual for Lilly to venture his own opinions on rules that he perceived as traditional.

I would like to emphasize this often understated but important point. One could easily argue that Lilly did not practice traditional astrology. We think of him as a traditionalist since we compare his methods to contemporary techniques and by that standard he surely is traditional. But Lilly, as Deb points out in the above quote, did go his own way when he felt it necessary, and given his level of accomplishment, few would deny him the privilege. He was no blind follower of the past, and I think it is important to keep this in mind when we study his work. William Lilly was his own man.

Al Biruni?s is probably the least detailed and of course there is the added disadvantage that we don?t have charts to demonstrate how he used it in practice.

This fact has drawn at least one opinion that Al Biruni was not an astrologer! The comparison to Ptolemy is tempting. We do not know if Ptolemy ever cast a chart in his life, and some think that a careful reading of Tetrabiblos demonstrates that he was not an astrologer. The same evidence could be cited in defense of the claim that Al Biruni was not an astrologer. Contemporary historians go so far as to say that Al Biruni did not believe that astrology worked, but that seems a bit far fetched. I've always had a hard time believing that someone would trouble themselves to become expert in a subject that means nothing to them, so I've always secretly thought Ptolemy was an astrologer who simply didn't add charts to his work, and I have a hard time with the idea that Al Biruni wasn't an astrologer. But there is no strong evidence to support my belief in these men, and I'll always wonder.

Tom

Hi Deb

Thank you for your response.

I can't get in to that link though - have you moved the article - or is it just being temperamental?!

Also, if I may ask, I am wondering why you would not use Venus/Sun as natural significator of femal/male? These planets are quoted by Lilly in C.A. (Al Kindus' Aphorisms).

Thanks again and bye for now.

Susan.