Reception

Reception is an important circumstance occurring between planets. But reception is a much-disputed area among modern astrologers. But I believe this is not due to contradictions, but rather due to a conflict of terms and application.

In order to avoid any conflict I am going to quote Abu Ma'shar. And this is because every other astrologer quotes his definitions in their works. If I began quoting all the sources, they would be quite repetitive and unnecessary.

I must also emphasise, that it is precisely all the 'circumstances of the planets' that is probably the greatest difference between the purely Hellenistic approach to astrology and the later Arabic astrologers. I say different but do not mean contradictory! The 'pure' Greek perspective of the planets was quite static and you will find little mention of the consequences derived from the applications of the planets to each other. Only the Moon was considered when examining what planet she separated from and to what planet she was joining to. The Arabic era astrologers were more faithful to the Hellenistic approach than they are given credit for. But perhaps their greatest contribution to the science was their introduction of the very dynamic circumstances of the planets with each other. It is not that they were 'innovative' but their judgments were the natural conclusions to their deep understanding of original principles.

The original principles of disposition we find in the Greek tradition and they say that a planet posited in a sign gives its disposition to the ruler of that sign. The Greeks stated that as long as that ruler did not "fall amiss" then it had the authority to dispose the affairs of its domicile (and any planets posited in its domicile). The term "falling amiss" was later, somewhat mistakenly perhaps, translated from the Greek into Latin as "cadent". What the Greeks were saying was that a planet that falls (literally) inconjunct to its own domicile, "fell amiss". All the Arabic astrologers did, was to expound on this principle bringing the principle to its ultimate conclusion. Masha'allah states this in his work, "On Reception". We can summarise it in this quote from Masha'allah:

Likewise with the other seven planets, whichever of these has been joined to his associate from that associate's domicile or exaltation in [one of] the recognised aspects, or in one sign, and projects or commits its disposition, and if that planet to which it is committed receives the disposition, that planet will perfect its matter according to the command of God.

What the Arabic authors did with the doctrine of reception was nothing more than restate the original intent in terms that were applicable to the many facets of astrology! It was inherent in the Greek astrology and brought to its 'rational' conclusion by the Arabs. In its purest form, reception is the committing of a planets disposition to its ruler so long as that ruler does not fall amiss, or in other words, maintains an aspect with the planet in its domicile. And here it is extremely important to understand just what they meant by aspect. As I wrote in an earlier post, planets had aspects because the signs had aspects. Thus, a "recognised aspect" was a position in any sign that did not fall inconjunct (or fall amiss) to the sign in question.

To further understand reception, let's look at the definition given by Abu Ma'shar:

Reception is when a planet [A] applies to a planet [B] from the house of the planet to which it applies [B's] or from its exaltation, term, triplicity or decan [any of B's dignities where A is posited]: then it [B] receives it [A]. Or the receiver of the application [B] is in the house of the pushing planet [A] or in its other shares, which we have mentioned before, then it [A] receives it [B]. The strongest of these is the Lord of the House or of the exaltation. The Lord of the term or <that of the> triplicity or decan are weak unless two or more of them are joined. One of them may receive the other also by aspect without application, although the reception by application is stronger.

Abu Ma'shar is again reiterating Masha'allah's definition except that he is making it very clear that there are definite degrees of strength connected to reception.

The simplest demonstration of reception then is if say the Moon were in Leo and is applying to Jupiter in Taurus. The planet [A], the Moon or pushing planet, is applying to Jupiter [B] or the receiver of the application in the exaltation of the Moon. The Moon receives Jupiter. If the Moon happened to be at 4° Leo and Jupiter at 14° Taurus, then not only does the Moon receive Jupiter but also Jupiter receives the Moon since she is in his terms and triplicity. And since Jupiter is in his terms at 14° Taurus he not only commits his disposition to her but confers on her his virtue.

Now this committing and reception of a planets disposition is very important in that a planet which is not necessarily strong on its own can be lifted and made strong by the planet which commits its disposition. Bonatti writes,

For example, Jupiter was in the 9th degree of Aries, and Mars was in the 5th degree of that same Aries; now Mars is joined to Jupiter and Mars receives Jupiter by his domicile; wherefore Mars commits to Jupiter his own strength or disposition and nature; and Jupiter has in that place the dignity of triplicity wherefore Jupiter now has the dignity of both, namely, that which Jupiter has according to triplicity and that which Mars gave him according to domicile, and that commixture which Mars makes with him is called a reception which the philosophers call Alcobal.

Since Mars is applying to Jupiter he not only receives Jupiter but also confers virtue onto Jupiter and Bonatti's intent here is to say that Jupiter no longer has 3 virtues of triplicity, but now has 8 with Mars' 5 for domicile. One can quickly see the usefulness of reception. In my example, if the Moon were instead in 4° Cancer and Mercury was in 14° Taurus, the Moon is applying to Mercury and receiving Mercury. However, Mercury is peregrine but the Moon is in her domicile and triplicity and she confers on Mercury her virtue because Mercury is also committing his disposition to her. He therefore benefits from this and now has that virtue she bestows which lifts him from his peregrination.

With the above in mind, we can look closely at Lilly's definition of reception,

Reception is when two Planets that are significators in any Question or matter, are in each others dignity; as Sun in Aries, and Mars in Leo; here is reception of these two Planets by Houses; and certainly this is the strongest and best of all receptions. It may be by Triplicity, term or face, or any essentiall dignity; as Venus in Aries, and Sun in Taurus; here is reception by triplicity, if the Question or Nativity by day: so Venus in the 24 of Aries, and Mars in the 16 of Gemini; here is reception by term, Mars being in the terms of Venus, and she in his terms.
The use of this is much; so many times when as the effecting of the matter is denyed by the Aspects, or when the significators have no aspect to each other, or when it seems very doubtfull what its promised by Square or Opposition of the significators, yet if mutuall Reception happen betwixt the principall significators, the thing is brought to passe, and that without any great trouble, and suddenly to the content of both parties.

Lilly's statement, "here is reception of these two Planets by Houses; and certainly this is the strongest and best of all receptions", should make it clear that this is not the only type of reception but is the reception that is of the greatest degree of strength perfecting the thing quesited without a hitch. But it should be also made clear that it is not exclusively the only reception that works to perfect a matter. He does not say the only reception, but the strongest and best. I'm sure Lilly's interest was to give to his students that form of reception that would always perform. From horary examples of reception given by Bonatti and Masha'allah, it is clear that mutual reception is not the only reception that perfects a matter. A single reception where the receiver also confers virtue works quite well.

In its weakest form, reception is as Abu states, when one planet receives another "without application". That is to say, if in my example above the Moon were in 3° Leo and Jupiter in 25° Taurus, the Moon still receives Jupiter, without application, but it is weak.

The question has presented itself several times on the list, can two planets receive each other and they have no aspect between them, For example Mars in Taurus and Venus in Aries. The answer I believe is yes and no. At the heart of reception is the principle that the signs must be in aspect. There were, however situations and conditions that allowed signs to have a relationship other than aspect and in spite of their being inconjunct. If Mars were in Pisces and Venus in Aries, then I strongly believe a reception occurs because Aries and Pisces have a relationship other than aspectual, that is they are signs of equal ascension and power. If Mercury were in Cancer and the Moon in Gemini the same would occur because Gemini and Cancer are signs of equal power (antiscia). If Mars was at 8° Virgo (the triplicity and terms of Venus) and Venus was in 8° Aries then a reception occurs because although Virgo and Aries have no recognized aspect they are signs of equal power (antiscia). Al Biruni makes a strong case for the conditions that mitigate inconjunction and their usefulness.

This type of reception was called "generosity" and Ibn Ezra explains it on this wise,

Generosity is when two planets are in each other's domicile, or exaltation, or some other rulership; even though they do not join or aspect one another, there is still reception between them.

Abu Ma'shar in his Greater Introduction in fact, goes into much greater detail.

In generosity (i.e. reception) some are found stronger, some weaker, some of medium strength. The greatest generosity is between the Sun and the Moon. For, the Moon takes from the Sun in any sign, except opposition, which is harming. Therefore, when the Moon comes into a sign in which the Sun enjoys some dignity, its benefits are doubled: for one gift is from the sign [the suns dignity], the other from the nature [the Suns benefic nature]. Mercury, when another planet is in Virgo, provides two benefits for it. But a medium benefit is what each star receives from another, either from its house or from its exaltation or its decan or its triplicity or its term. If two of these are given, it will be greater. Whatever is other than the aforesaid, it will be weak.

I hope this isn't an information overload. Reception is a very useful dynamic in horary, natal, mundane and elections. Where the differences of opinion occur most frequently is usually due to differences of application. A horary question generally deals with the immediate compared to a lifetime in the nativity. The rules for reception are identical but it is the expectation that is very different.