Recently, I participated in an astrology workshop where the astrologer analyzed charts submitted by attendees. During the session, it was noted that one participant had two planets in mutual reception: Mars in Libra and Venus in Scorpio. Although both planets are in their detriment, the astrologer believed the reception mitigated their negative effects.

In my own chart, I have a similar arrangement with Mercury in Taurus and Venus in Gemini. However, I no longer view this as mutual reception since these planets do not form a Ptolemaic aspect. Instead, both Mercury and Venus are in aversion to the houses they govern. Hellenistic astrologers regarded planets that are "turned away" from their ruling houses as challenging placements, as they lack the capacity to "see" the houses they rule—thus, in this case, the planet they exchange signs with. This idea was subtly echoed by the workshop attendee when they remarked that their mutual reception "did nothing for [them]." Was this due to the aversion between the two planets, or was it a consequence of the inherent nature of their exchange—essentially, the double debility? Let's explore this further.

Reception: An Invitation to Engagement

Astrologers often liken a planet positioned in a house other than its own to being a "guest" hosted by another planet. For instance, when Mars is in Virgo, it is seen as a guest of Mercury, who supports Mars in achieving its objectives. The degree to which Mars can effectively pursue its agenda hinges on Mercury's condition. If Mercury is strong—say, in Gemini (another of its ruling houses), angular, or possessing some form of dignity—Mars may thrive. Possible activities for Mars-Mercury could include research, debate, or advocacy. Conversely, if Mercury is in Pisces—its place of detriment and fall—Mars may encounter difficulties, leading to fragmented efforts and a lack of clarity.

If Mars is in Virgo while Mercury resides in Scorpio—two signs engaged in mutual reception—they are configured by sextile, allowing them to "see" each other. This mutual aspect fosters a supportive dynamic, enabling both planets to assist one another effectively in their pursuits.

Traditionally, planets cannot perceive one another if they are 30 or 150 degrees apart (often referred to as modern semi-sextile and quincunx aspects). The principles of reception, especially mutual reception, depend on the planets being able to "see" each other through aspects such as sextiles, squares, trines, or oppositions. This may explain why the workshop participant felt their "mutual reception" was ineffective; if the planets are averse to each other, they cannot offer support. However, aside from their debilities, do these aversive planets share any connection?

Hellenistic Optical Theory: The Essence of Planetary Influence

There is a wealth of information available online regarding planetary aspects and Hellenistic optical theory, so I will refrain from delving into that here. If you find yourself with some leisure time, consider exploring Claudius Ptolemy's Optics, which is an intriguing read. Alongside his influential astrological work, Tetrabiblos, Ptolemy contributed to various fields, including geography, mathematics, and astronomy. His Optics has been preserved through numerous translations by Arabic and Latin scholars over the centuries, and I mention it here due to its significant impact on the optical theories of al-Kindi, a pivotal figure in traditional astrology.

In Mark Smith's introduction to his 1996 English translation of Ptolemy's Optics, he notes the potential influence of Ptolemy's work on al-Kindi's own optical treatise, De aspectibus (On Aspects). This treatise became one of the most impactful works on optics during the Middle Ages, shaping al-Kindi's broader philosophical outlook, as articulated in his other work, De radiis stellarum (On the Rays of the Stars). For astrologers, the relevance lies in understanding how optical theory relates to the nature of rays emitted by planets. Al-Kindi posited that everything radiates power, connecting the cosmos into an intricate network where every entity influences others.

Astrologically, a planet casting a ray received by another can be seen as emanating a form of power, with the nature of that power reflecting the quality of the aspectual rays. Sextiles are linked to Venus, squares to Mars, trines to Jupiter, and oppositions to Saturn. Thus, planets are most powerful when they interact via rays, characterized by their geometric aspects. In summary, while my natal placements and those of the workshop participant may not represent "mutual reception," it raises the question of whether any affinity exists between the two planets.

To address this, we can look to another significant figure from the Medieval period, Abraham Ibn Ezra (ca. 1089–ca. 1161), whose Book of Wisdom defines both "reception" and a concept called "generosity." The latter aligns closely with the configuration that inspired this discussion. Here are the relevant definitions:

“‘Reception’ occurs when planet [A] approaches either in conjunction or aspect to planet [B], which governs its house, exaltation, triplicity, term, or decan, thereby receiving it. Reception also happens when planet [A] applies to planet [B] while the latter is situated in the house of the power-giver or its exaltation; however, if it is in the house of planet [A]'s triplicity, term, or decan, the reception is not fully realized. When they apply to each other through two lordships, like triplicity with term or decan, or if they are in trine or sextile to each other, this constitutes reception. Reception can also occur if they are in degrees of signs that rise simultaneously. A benefic planet receives another benefic due to its balanced nature, while Mars and Jupiter may receive each other if they are conjunct, sextile, or trine, but not in other aspects.

“(1) Reception can be classified as strong, moderate, or weak. (2) The Moon consistently receives strong reception from the Sun, as it derives its light from the Sun. However, the Sun’s reception of the Moon from opposition is fraught with difficulty. When the Moon receives the Sun in a sign where it has some lordship, the reception is doubled. (3) When Mercury receives a planet from Virgo—its house and exaltation—the reception is complete. (4) Moderate reception occurs between planets within their houses. (5) Weak reception arises from their triplicity, term, or decan.

“‘Generosity’ is when two planets occupy each other's houses, exaltations, or some form of lordship of the other planet; even without conjunction or aspect, there is still reception between them.”

From these definitions, we can deduce two key points: first, reception necessitates some aspectual relationship between planets—antiscia and contra-antiscia relationships seem to qualify based on their shared rising times; second, two planets exchanging signs experience a form of reception, though the strength of this reception remains ambiguous. Ibn Ezra offers little interpretation, aside from a brief positive delineation concerning planets in each other's generosity.

The Significance of Sight in Ancient Thought

As I delve into the cosmologies of Isidore of Seville and the Venerable Bede, I frequently encounter references to Pliny’s Natural History. For those writing about cosmic mechanics in the sixth and seventh centuries, this comprehensive work appears foundational to understanding the world's composition. I sought insights from Pliny on how we perceive planets and "sight" in astrology, and I found a compelling summary by Eleni Hall Manolaraki in her article, “Senses and the Sacred in Pliny’s Natural History.” She beautifully articulates:

“It is a truism that seeing is the paradigmatic mode of experience. From Homeric ekphrasis to apocalyptic visions in the Book of Revelation and Dante’s Inferno, ‘the gaze’ underpins all discussions of reality in western thought. Our research language reflects this bias: we ‘look at’ and ‘reflect on’ texts to ‘elucidate’ connections and ‘illustrate’ topics, producing ‘insightful’ or even ‘eye-opening’ discussions.”

This perspective aligns with our understanding of planets in astrology: the primary way we consider their relationships is through aspects, which grant planets the gift of "sight," empowering them to influence our unfolding destinies. Although neither I nor the workshop participant had a mutual reception in the strict sense, our respective placements could be interpreted as a different type of reception: generosity. However, the caveat is that planets can only share their strengths according to their own placement by sign. Thus, it’s understandable that the workshop participant found their configuration of Mars in Libra and Venus in Scorpio challenging; two planets in exile would have limited resources to share, potentially leading to a struggle to navigate their inherent weaknesses. Transforming challenges into opportunities is indeed a form of celestial generosity!

If you enjoyed this post, feel free to reach out and follow me on Instagram: @theeclecticoccultista.

— Notes

1. Mark Smith, “Ptolemy’s Theory of Visual Perception: An English Translation of the ‘Optics’ with Introduction and Commentary,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 86, no. 2, 1996, iii–300 (p. 55) <https://doi.org/10.2307/3231951> [accessed 6 June 2022]
2. David C. Lindberg, “Alkindi’s Critique of Euclid’s Theory of Vision,” Isis, vol. 62, no. 4, 1971, 469–89 (p. 471) <http://www.jstor.org/stable/229818> [accessed 9 June 2022]
3. Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Introductions to Astrology: A Parallel Hebrew-English Critical Edition of the Book of the Beginning of Wisdom and the Book of the Judgments of the Zodiacal Signs, trans. and ed. by Shlomo Sela (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2017), pp. 209–211.
4. Ibid, p. 227.
5. Eleni Hall Manolaraki, “Senses and the Sacred in Pliny’s Natural History,” Illinois Classical Studies, vol. 43, no. 1, 2018, 207–33 (p. 208) <https://doi.org/10.5406/illiclasstud.43.1.0207> [accessed 12 June 2022]