chuckles! you took the words right out of my Mouth Tom!

with all the reading I've been doing lately I sometimes wonder on what points astrologers DO agree!

I was taken aback when someone said that Burnadette Brady doesn't Practise Traditional AStrology the other day, until I realised they were thinking of the term Traditional Astrology to mean CA, as opposed to the Ancient Fixed star stuff she's been publishing. While I was thinking of the term Traditional as meaning something practised repeatedly by a group of people. In which sense, she certainly is practising traditional astrology.

In anycase, I'm under the impression that William Lilly disagreed with his contemporaries on occasion as well, I suspect I have a great deal of reading and practising to go before I'd hazard a judgement that one astrologers method was more valid than anothers. (unless it pertains to me in which case I can certainly judge if a person was dead on or not)

Just a thought. =) Amazing how much opinion this thread has generated. Can't accuse any of you of being wishy washy, certainly.

Sincerely yours in good humour!

Granny

Precisely what is "traditional astrology" and who are those who meet this rgorous definition without exception? After all we cannot determine who is not a traditional astrologer unless we know what it is that makes someone a traditional astrologer in the first place.

Well lets have a go....

''A traditional astrologer is someone who is a student and practitioner of a pre-modern approach to astrology. In this context they respect and seek to deepen the wider understanding of traditional astrology techniques''

I would suggest that a traditionalist , unlike a modern astrologer , relies by definition on a traditional authority for the techniques they advocate e.g. Lilly, Bonatti, Ptolemy etc. When they differ personally with an aspect of the tradition they make their position clear. Examples of this include Ibn Ezra and Morin.

'The tradition' is not of course monolithic and there are going to be differences of emphasis depending on whether the practitioner relies primarily on ancient, medieval or renaissance sources.

A true ?traditional astrologer? is someone who lived and practiced in the 17th century and earlier. Lilly meets the definition quite well.

The club is much smaller than most people who call themselves such would like. If you use the Moon?s True Nodes you aren?t a traditional astrologer?. The only possible rigorous definition for a living traditional astrologer would have to include using only bodies, points and methods that existed during and before the 17th century. That would rule out any astrologer who sees Neptune right on the Ascendant and can?t muster up the courage to ignore it.

All the rest are modern astrologers primarily using bodies, points and methods that existed during and before the 17th century. ?Primarily? shows that we can?t be as rigorous as we would like and still include ourselves and our favored colleagues.

Hi Kirk,

A true ?traditional astrologer? is someone who lived and practiced in the 17th century and earlier. Lilly meets the definition quite well.

Ok I take it from this you think the only good traditional astrologer is a dead one!

I accept your point on the nodes but I think bringing in the outer planets is rather a red herring. After all we have no idea what reaction traditional authorities like Lilly would have made of the discovery of the outer planets.

Lilly was certainly open to trying out the Keplerian aspects in book 3 of Christian Astrology. It seems plausible he would have been equally open minded on the outer planets.

I think there is a difference between discarding basic astrological ideas and applying traditional astrological principles in the light of new information about the universe. For example, no traditional astrologer mentioned the circumpolar fixed stars of the southern hemisphere because they were simply unaware of their existence. Does that mean that traditional astrologers in the southern hemisphere should now ignore the stars of the constellation Crux (Southern cross) because it isn't mentioned by Lilly or Morin? Hardly.

Mark

Ok I take it from this you think the only good traditional astrologer is a dead one!

The thought is an appealing one, but in order to more accurately state my position we need to change one word: ?the only real traditional astrologer is a dead one?. It does bring to mind Frawley?s The Real Astrology. Horrid title. That and a few witty smug quotes from him about modern astrology got me running away as fast as possible.

Lilly was certainly open to trying out the Keplerian aspects in book 3 of Christian Astrology.

Kepler and his aspects ? so was he really a traditional astrologer? And so on....

After all we have no idea what reaction traditional authorities like Lilly would have made of the discovery of the outer planets.

Yes. It's easier to define, categorize and limit a dead person than a living person who comes to new conclusions in adaptation to current developments. That?s the risk we run in burying our noses in old pages.

We are getting away from Frawley?s Horary book, but that seemed inevitable when Tom suggested we define traditional astrology.

Hello Kirk,

It does bring to mind Frawley?s The Real Astrology. Horrid title. That and a few witty smug quotes from him about modern astrology got me running away as fast as possible.

Funny as I really enjoyed the book. It was a bit cruel in parts but also hilarious too. In fact the book is what got me first interested in traditional astrology. There is no denying Frawley is a gifted writer with a good ability to put over his ideas in an amusing and accessible way.

Perhaps that is why I am so disappointed and frustrated by The Horary Textbook. I find it quite demoralising that such a supposed champion of traditional astrology doesn't really practice what he preaches.

Mark

Let?s remember that this thread exists in response to this request:

I would like an opinion, would John Frawley's "Horary Textbook" be a recommended book for learning horary? Does he teach in the same vein as Lilly? Any comments would be appreciated.

I don?t think there is any controversy in pointing out the obvious ? like where Frawley obviously does things differently from Lilly or misrepresents/?fails to explain? Lilly?s philosophy, but we?re drifting off track now. The question of what constitutes traditional astrology is a good discussion, but it?s a whole new discussion and to give that the space it deserves (and the freedom of being discussed without inclinations towards or against any particular author) it ought to be raised elsewhere.

To Deb and all who responded to my question.

From all I've read in both posts on the subject of Frawley and Lilly regarding "traditional Horary," it is a no brainer that having started with Lilly, I will stick with Lilly. I have nothing against any other authors but I prefer not to deviate from the traditional.

Thanks to all of you for such enlightening information

MarG[/b]

The question of what constitutes traditional astrology is a good discussion, but it?s a whole new discussion and to give that the space it deserves (and the freedom of being discussed without inclinations towards or against any particular author) it ought to be raised elsewhere.

Deb is correct when they say we drifted from the topic, but it was done for a reason. If we are going to say this one or that one is or is not a "traditional astrologer," or even does or does not follow a particular author, there should be a standard by which they are judged, assuming such a judgment is even important.

Tom

Regardless of how far it has wandered, both threads have been very helpful to me as a new student. The only horary text I have is Frawley's and it is helpful to see differing views. Thanks.

It's funny, after reading these post I am gearing my self to dive back into Lilly's CA I, II, & III, but that archiac language! I am actually re-reading Mr. Frawley's RA and RAA as a form of procrastinating on this task! Sigh, but it must be done.