Astrology
Ok, reception is another area where we can see change and simplification over the entire range of traditional astrology. The later Renaissance astrologers had simplified the medieval astrology of Bonatti who had already simplified the very complex early medieval Arabic teachings of astrologers like Abu Mashar and Mashallah. Reception is a good example of this, since by the 17th century reception simply meant two planets each in each others sign or exaltation or a combination of sign and exaltation. Thus the Moon in Leo and the Sun in Cancer, or the Moon in Aries and the Sun in Taurus, or the Moon in Aries and the Sun in Cancer. What me might call "17th century reception" is basically mutual reception, by the Renaissance reception and mutual reception have become synonymous.
However, this is another Renaissance simplification. Guido Bonatti, the medieval author of the encyclopedic Book of Astronomy says of reception,
"...if some planet is joined with the Lord of the sign in which it is (or the Lord of the exaltation of the same sign, or with the Lord of the bound [term] or triplicity or face) whether by body [conjunction] or aspect, that planet who is the Lord of the sign (or some dignity of it) commits and gives his own disposition and nature and virtue to it.
It is for instance true if it is joined with the lord of the domicile [sign] exaltation or two of the lesser dignities...but if it is joined only with the lord of the bound [term] or with the lord of the triplicity or with the lord of the face [then] the lord of those dignities or bounds by only one, does not receive him, because they are not of so much virtue that one alone can make reception without the help of another."
Bonatti, Book of Astronomy, Tr III, chapter 13, Dykes trans at 223.
Ok, so what Bonatti is saying is that to have reception you need:
(1) an aspect between the planets [note that because of the nature of separating and applying aspects in horary and electional we need an applying aspect for reception]
(2) At least one of the planets in the dignity of the other.
So, the Sun in Cancer and Moon in Leo would not be in reception according to this definition! Instead in medieval style traditional astrology the Sun in Cancer and Moon in Leo is an example of generosity. See Abu Mashar, Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology, trans Burnett, (Arhat 1994) at page 28, note 1, citing the Abu Mashar's Great Introduction.
Now we can get into all sorts of complex permutations of terminology, but I like the clarity of reception requiring an aspect and generosity simply indicating being in the dignity of a planet. Either way this these show a connection and/or special relationship between the planets that are in reception or in generosity and the people or things they signify.
So what difference does reception make? Bonatti, in his section on horary explains that reception makes an aspect more positive, for example a trine or sextile, both good aspects, with reception makes things come easily, while a square with reception indicates it takes effort to get the thing or person desired, while a square without reception requires great trouble.
Bonatti, Book of Astronomy, Tr VI, chapter 2, Dykes trans at 362.
Ok, so this is how I explain reception and generosity. This is certainly not the only way, nor is it the "BEST" way since I don't think that there is one, perfect, best for everyone for all time method. Of course at the same time there are lots and LOTS of plain wrong methods!
- Book Recommendation: Bonatti "on Horary"
Here's another of my semi-regular traditional astrology book recommendations, Guido Bonatti's "On Horary" The 13th century Italian astrologer Guido Bonatti wrote one of the most important books of traditional astrology, the Liber Astronomiae...
- Malefics: Merely Weak Or Actually Powerful For Evil?
Generally we are doing talismans for benefic purposes and doing horaries looking for a positive result. When we are looking for a positive result it doesn't much matter to us whether a planet is simply weak or is actively and powerfully malefic,...
- A Necessary Synthesis #3 Leopold's Talismans
If we wish to practice traditional astrology we need to stay within the tradition. This is less of a moral judgment than simply one of keeping our labels straight. We do not wish, as my mentor in magic Robert Zoller said, to be flying under ?false flags?...
- Reasons For Rulership
One of the things that distinguishes traditional from modern astrology is not just additional techniques, but a much more nuanced and variant application of underlying theories. In modern, all assignment of rulerships, be it planet or sign, is on the...
- Modern Vs. Traditional Approach To Astrology
I received insight into a major difference between the modern and traditional approach at a lecture I attended by a fairly well known astrologer who uses some traditional techniques. The astrologer mentioned the question of reception. Now by Lilly's...
Astrology
My Take on Reception
Ok, reception is another area where we can see change and simplification over the entire range of traditional astrology. The later Renaissance astrologers had simplified the medieval astrology of Bonatti who had already simplified the very complex early medieval Arabic teachings of astrologers like Abu Mashar and Mashallah. Reception is a good example of this, since by the 17th century reception simply meant two planets each in each others sign or exaltation or a combination of sign and exaltation. Thus the Moon in Leo and the Sun in Cancer, or the Moon in Aries and the Sun in Taurus, or the Moon in Aries and the Sun in Cancer. What me might call "17th century reception" is basically mutual reception, by the Renaissance reception and mutual reception have become synonymous.
However, this is another Renaissance simplification. Guido Bonatti, the medieval author of the encyclopedic Book of Astronomy says of reception,
"...if some planet is joined with the Lord of the sign in which it is (or the Lord of the exaltation of the same sign, or with the Lord of the bound [term] or triplicity or face) whether by body [conjunction] or aspect, that planet who is the Lord of the sign (or some dignity of it) commits and gives his own disposition and nature and virtue to it.
It is for instance true if it is joined with the lord of the domicile [sign] exaltation or two of the lesser dignities...but if it is joined only with the lord of the bound [term] or with the lord of the triplicity or with the lord of the face [then] the lord of those dignities or bounds by only one, does not receive him, because they are not of so much virtue that one alone can make reception without the help of another."
Bonatti, Book of Astronomy, Tr III, chapter 13, Dykes trans at 223.
Ok, so what Bonatti is saying is that to have reception you need:
(1) an aspect between the planets [note that because of the nature of separating and applying aspects in horary and electional we need an applying aspect for reception]
(2) At least one of the planets in the dignity of the other.
So, the Sun in Cancer and Moon in Leo would not be in reception according to this definition! Instead in medieval style traditional astrology the Sun in Cancer and Moon in Leo is an example of generosity. See Abu Mashar, Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology, trans Burnett, (Arhat 1994) at page 28, note 1, citing the Abu Mashar's Great Introduction.
Now we can get into all sorts of complex permutations of terminology, but I like the clarity of reception requiring an aspect and generosity simply indicating being in the dignity of a planet. Either way this these show a connection and/or special relationship between the planets that are in reception or in generosity and the people or things they signify.
So what difference does reception make? Bonatti, in his section on horary explains that reception makes an aspect more positive, for example a trine or sextile, both good aspects, with reception makes things come easily, while a square with reception indicates it takes effort to get the thing or person desired, while a square without reception requires great trouble.
Bonatti, Book of Astronomy, Tr VI, chapter 2, Dykes trans at 362.
Ok, so this is how I explain reception and generosity. This is certainly not the only way, nor is it the "BEST" way since I don't think that there is one, perfect, best for everyone for all time method. Of course at the same time there are lots and LOTS of plain wrong methods!
- Book Recommendation: Bonatti "on Horary"
Here's another of my semi-regular traditional astrology book recommendations, Guido Bonatti's "On Horary" The 13th century Italian astrologer Guido Bonatti wrote one of the most important books of traditional astrology, the Liber Astronomiae...
- Malefics: Merely Weak Or Actually Powerful For Evil?
Generally we are doing talismans for benefic purposes and doing horaries looking for a positive result. When we are looking for a positive result it doesn't much matter to us whether a planet is simply weak or is actively and powerfully malefic,...
- A Necessary Synthesis #3 Leopold's Talismans
If we wish to practice traditional astrology we need to stay within the tradition. This is less of a moral judgment than simply one of keeping our labels straight. We do not wish, as my mentor in magic Robert Zoller said, to be flying under ?false flags?...
- Reasons For Rulership
One of the things that distinguishes traditional from modern astrology is not just additional techniques, but a much more nuanced and variant application of underlying theories. In modern, all assignment of rulerships, be it planet or sign, is on the...
- Modern Vs. Traditional Approach To Astrology
I received insight into a major difference between the modern and traditional approach at a lecture I attended by a fairly well known astrologer who uses some traditional techniques. The astrologer mentioned the question of reception. Now by Lilly's...