Mutual or mixed reception between two planets

In tradition, from Hellenistic astrology to the Arabic authors and then William Lilly, each sign has its rulers: the domicile ruler, the exalted planet, the triplicity, term and decan rulers. A planet placed in a sign is "received" by those rulers. If Mars occupies a sign ruled by Saturn, Saturn receives Mars.

Reception becomes interesting when it runs both ways. Two planets each placed in a sign where the other has a dignity are in mutual reception: each has access to the other's ground. The ancients saw in it a recourse, a way of working together even in a difficult configuration.

AstralPro makes several choices, measured on real charts:

• Domicile and exaltation only. Receptions by term, decan or triplicity are set aside: they added comments to a great many squares, for dignities of lower rank.
• Mutual and mixed are spoken. Mutual when both dignities are of the same rank (domicile for domicile, exaltation for exaltation), mixed when they differ (domicile on one side, exaltation on the other).
• Simple reception is calculated but left unspoken. One-way, nothing is exchanged, and it is about three times more frequent than the other two: stating it would drown out the strong case.
• Modern rulerships. Reception uses the same table as the Dignity column of your report: Pluto rules Scorpio, Uranus Aquarius, Neptune Pisces. A reception can therefore involve a modern planet, something the ancient sources did not know. This is deliberate: a reception calculated on another table would contradict the dignity printed two pages earlier.

A reception modulates an aspect. Without an aspect, it has nothing to modulate: AstralPro therefore only states it when it is attached to a row of the grid. In "The complete aspect grid" (columns Planet A, Aspect, Planet B, Orb, Direction, Reading), it is written in small type under the aspect's name: "mutual reception" or "mixed reception". The note under the table recalls this, and the natal report's glossary gives it an entry, "Reception".

In the prose, the word is not written. The report states the consequence, not the mechanics: reciprocity, recourse, room to move within a hard aspect. You will not read an explanation through crossed dignities; you will read that two functions of your chart find common ground where the aspect alone would stand in the way. The Book, with its narrower format, does not show reception in its table, but devotes a chapter to it, "Rulerships and Receptions".

In the chart of Camille Morel, AstralPro's example chart (fictional data), no reception is shown in the aspect grid.

The engine does find one, though, and it is instructive. Saturn is in Aquarius, the domicile of Uranus; Uranus is in Capricorn, the domicile of Saturn: this is a mutual reception by domicile. But Saturn (23°53' Aquarius) and Uranus (19°10' Capricorn) form no aspect in her forty-row grid. With no aspect to hold on to, the reception stays in the calculation.

The rest is only simple reception. Her Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus and Jupiter are in Scorpio, Pluto's home, and Pluto is itself in Scorpio and returns the favour to none of them: her Sun-Pluto conjunction (orb 3°23') therefore carries no mention under the aspect's name.

To picture it, here are two hypothetical cases, which do not concern Camille:

• A chart with Mars in Capricorn and Saturn in Aries, in square. Mars is in Saturn's domicile, Saturn in Mars's domicile: the row "Mars, Square, Saturn" would show "mutual reception" under the word Square.
• A chart with Mars in Libra and Saturn in Aries, in opposition. Mars is in Saturn's exaltation, Saturn in Mars's domicile: two different ranks, so "mixed reception" under the word Opposition.

In both cases, the reading of the aspect changes tone: the tension remains, but it has some give, each planet able to lean on the other.

Most aspects have no reception, and that is normal. The report does not point it out and does not invent an understanding where the calculation finds none. A filled cell would be a statement; an empty cell only says that this nuance does not apply to this aspect. If your grid carries one, look at the aspect it is attached to: it is often a tension in your chart that turns out to be more flexible than it seems.