An ill Mutual Reception

In Christian Astrology page 107 William Lilly discribes the various forms of applications between the planets. 1) Two planets may apply by direct motion 2) One planet may apply to another who is retrograding to meet it, so events may take a speedy course 3) Planets may perfect an aspect but where both planets are retrograde. The latter is termed an ill application. The matter is more clearly explained, in my opinion, on page 97 of the 'Key to the Whole Art of Astrology' by Henry Coley.

The ill application receives its name because both the backward planets are heading in the worng direction - like two cars in reverse. They are heading in the wrong direction or for the wrong reasons, moving backwards and not forwards, or are having difficulty in seeing where they are going. This is likely to cause misunderstandings, misdealings or matters may suddenly collapse as people change their minds and new facts come to the surface. This leads me to the concept of an ill mutual reception.

The ill mutual reception occurs when two retrograde planets are in reception by sign. We have one in the sky at the present moment. Mars is retrograde in Virgo, Mercury is retrograde in Aries. Matters may proceed with haste, but there is likely to be mismanagement or mischief and the matter may lead to ill.

The thought struck me last night. I was dealing with a client with Sun Aries who was contemplating an affair with a person with Sun in Virgo. The date was set for next week. One of the parties was married. Grown up people are largely responsible for their own actions, but my astrological advice had to be 'stay away', be careful and don't get yourself into trouble. The retrograde Mercury and Mars in the sun signs of these people were representative for the nature of their potential relationship and what may come out of it.

The chart of the Aries had Sun in Aries and Moon in Scorpio. this is interesting because if involving with a Virgo, the Sun in this sign makes up the missing leg in a 'Yod' or a finger of God. The Yod is like a predetermined circumstance that is apt to put you on the spot and in a fix. So in this sense the Yod is like a wegde. It is the wegde that you knock into the tree before you saw the last bit and the whole thing comes toppling down.

I have entered this thread to the horary section because the matter was dealt with in a horary fashion. The Moon was in Capricorn in the 4th house, configuring with Pluto, Jupiter & Venus in the 8th and Mars in the 12th. But the subject I wanted to discuss was the reception between retrograde planets and the implications for immenent questions. I hope that is acceptable.

Andrew Bevan wrote:The ill mutable reception occurs when two retrograde planets are in reception by sign. We have one in the sky at the present moment. Mars is retrograde in Virgo, Mercury is retrograde in Aries. Matters may proceed with haste, but there is likely to be mismanagement or mischief and the matter may lead to ill.

But reception itself is not simply when two planets are in the dignities of the other. It is when two planets, within orb of aspect, are within the dignities of the other, or are in signs that aspect one another.

Mars and Mercury do not make a Ptolemaic aspect, therefore if anything this is generosity (as it's apparently termed). So perhaps this is an 'ill' generosity, but it is not mutual reception.

In traditional astrology planets need not be in aspect of each other to be in mutual reception. They need only be in each others signs.

Granny

granny_skot wrote:In traditional astrology planets need not be in aspect of each other to be in mutual reception. They need only be in each others signs.

Granny

You are right, but not only signs: Following Lilly any dignity is sufficient. See Lilly, CA, page 112:

"Reception is when two Planets that are significators in any Question or matter, are in each others dignity; (...) It may be by triplicity terme or face, or any essentiall dignity; (...)The use of this is much; for many times when as the effecting of a matter is denyed by the Aspects, or when the significartors have no Aspect ot each other, or when it seemes very doubtfull what its promised by 90? or 180? 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. "

Johannes

Paul wrote: But reception itself is not simply when two planets are in the dignities of the other. It is when two planets, within orb of aspect, are within the dignities of the other, or are in signs that aspect one another.

Mars and Mercury do not make a Ptolemaic aspect, therefore if anything this is generosity (as it's apparently termed). So perhaps this is an 'ill' generosity, but it is not mutual reception.

But there is, for example, the dissenting opinion of Lilly, as you can read in my quoting him above, CA, page 112.

Johannes

I don't really find Lilly that compelling when it comes to technical descriptions.

I'm not aware of many authors who describe reception, mutual or otherwise, outside the context of an aspect.

Paul wrote:I don't really find Lilly that compelling when it comes to technical descriptions.

I'm not aware of many authors who describe reception, mutual or otherwise, outside the context of an aspect.

Nah, not in the time period I study either. I always took reception to be a special thing but with no aspect then every planet is received all of the time because it is always in someone's dignitiy . That kinda takes away any specialness it would have had otherwise. It also takes away the very important concept of aversion.

Ive not heard of that Paul, no aspect needed as far as Im aware. I use mutual reception by dignity or exaltation and look at fall and detriment too to see how a planet is received mutually or otherwise. Triplicity, term AND face is all going to far for me though even for horary.

I do not conceive that two planets in mutual dignities (i.e. by sign) also need to be in aspect to be in mutual reception. but Paul - you won't go much wrong if you also require that criteria before casting judgement.

Most of all I liked your description of the reception as a 'generosity'.

Mercury and Mars are problable the most mischievous of planets, particularly when acting together - I would say pick-pockets, pirates and highwaymen. When one of the two planets in reception is retrograde, I think this should be observed with some interest. When both planets are retrograde there must be mischief according to the nature of those planets.
In the case I was referring to, retrograde Mars was by transit opposing the Midheavan of the querent. I took this as an additional warning that the conduct of the other party could damage the reputation of my client.

Sometimes single people may move swiftly between relationships, from the one project to the next. That is alright by me, both some relationships tend to get more complicated than others. The job of the astrologer is then to offer true guidance and not just go along with the passions of the client.

Ok cool

I respect everyone who says otherwise and I can see that Lilly is a big influence on this forum so it's probably no wonder that this idea should have taken root. For what it's worth, I don't recall ever reading any other traditional author describing reception outside of the context of an aspect.
My understanding was always that reception is, technically, an attribute of an aspect, but that 'reception' without an aspect is useful also, more like a mutual dispositorship.

I guess it's still a debatable issue and not as clear cut as I had assumed.

One thing I'd like to just highlight, which may be of interest:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/reception.html

It is generally understood that reception is only relevant where an aspect is involved. As the 12th century astrologer Ibn Ezra states:

"Reception is noticed when a planet enters into conjunction or into aspect with a planet which is the master of its house, the master of the house of its honour, the master of the house of its triplicity, its limit, or its face".

However, Ezra also notes a condition called 'liberality' where:

"each of two planets is in the house of its companion, or in the house of its honour, or in any of its influences, and, even though they do not enter into conjunction or aspect with each other, still there will be reception between them".[7]

Hence the current debate about whether reception has significance where the two planets are not connected by aspect appears to be answered. Reception requires an aspect, but where there is no aspect the same benefits may be expected, providing the reception is mutual, as Lilly has intimated in his introductory definition.

Concerning the question of by what means things are brought to perfection in the business of horary astrology, on pg 126 of the Key to the Whole Art of Astrology, Coley does not mention reception but he does say that when the promising planets dwell in houses proper and convenient, though there be no aspect, the matter may be brought to perfection. By this I want to say that aspect isn't everything. Judgement may be brought together in several manners and one testimony will seek support in another.

The discussion is fruitful, yet the basic question posed in this thread is whether colleagues of astrology would agree that the significance of a reception receives a qualitative meaning according to whether planets are direct or retrograde?