The danger with any discussion like is that it can make our views seem more extreme than they really are.

In fairness my interest in traditional astrology was first sparked by John Frawley too through his book 'The Real Astrology'. Although it took a workshop with Deb make that into a roaring fire!

While I have some quibbles with Frawley's way of teaching aspects and reception there is no denying he has done a tremendous amount to popularise interest in traditional astrology across the world.

The problem is that some students treat their teacher as the final word rather than the starting point of a personal journey of astrological free enquiry.

Why are so many people worried about what John Frawley writes? I simply missed the point where he has become the new authority of astrology. He is entitled to his own opinion and then so many of us seem to fall over backwards in attempt to put him to fault. Personally, I am not too bothered. I neither follow Frawley or possess any his books (my mistake), although I do have the odd 'Apprentice' lying around. Hopefully we have read some of the same authors. I don't find him participating in the debate at Skyscript, so I don't actually find a suitable grounds for an exchange of opinion. I do enjoy the Skyscript forum.

But surely Frawley has made a valuable contribution to astrology. Who could argue? I feel certain that some of his books would prove a useful addition to my library that could rapidly capture my imagination if only I found the zest for reading them. Or would they distort my mind? My personal limitations are that I tend to get thrown off the bandwagon if something is expressed in too many words. It is as if I can't make up my mind whether a passage sets out to inform me or entertain and lure me.

People are different. Write and be published. Good luck to Frawley in his practice of astrology and I would certainly look forward to a natter over a cup of coffee or a pint of beer some day! I do hope that his books sell and are successful! It is so much rewarding after all that dedication, time, effort and work that we all appraise when we see expressed within the field that we care so much for.

In the mean time - press on and let us all get our ideas on the table!

Frawley claims to stand for "The Real Astrology? so if people buy his books believing they will learn traditional teachings it is not right that they get his "personal" opinion instead - excuse me, didn't he pour acid sarcasm on other astrologers for doing that? Here is the problem, he does not explain where he is giving his personal opinion instead of writing as someone we think is teaching traditional technique. I read his book and thought I understood reception. Eventually I realised that I had only understood ?his opinion?. And I thought his book was supposed to be making it easy ...

Why are so many people worried about what John Frawley writes? I simply missed the point where he has become the new authority of astrology.He is entitled to his own opinion and then so many of us seem to fall over backwards in attempt to put him to fault. Personally, I am not too bothered.

Hello Andrew,

As I see it this whole debate is quite an internalised discussion between those trying to follow a traditional approach to astrology. If your not trying to do that you will not perceive any problem here whatsoever.

Personally, I am not too bothered.

Ok. I am not very worried about arguments within the Anglican Church in England because I am not an Anglican. However, as we can see those within the Anglican fold do let get rather passionate about their differences!

The simple fact is John Frawley, through his books and courses, has arguably become the most influential traditional astrologer in the world.What he writes in his books has had and is having a tremendous impact in regards how people perceive traditional astrology.

In a sense his popularity is both a strength and a weakness for traditional astrology. On the one hand he is helping to popularise much of the tradition. On the other hand his often idiosyncratic take on traditional astrology is frequently what people perceive as the real thing. Like all great popularisers Frawley has taken the route of simplication at the expense of complex detail. Unfortunately, some simplifications such as his approach to aspects and reception has totally distorted the traditional understanding in this area.

If you had read the Real Astrology you would get the point. There Frawley uses merciless wit to trash modern astrology as next to worthless and sets up traditional astrology as 'The Real Astrology'. Unfortunately, as the self appointed champion of the traditional approach Frawley does not always practice what he preaches....

Why is that a problem? Because the ripple effects of this are that people come on forums like skyscript thinking they have learned a traditional approach when they have not. As a result they need to go through a de-conditioning process to separate Frawley's ideas from the traditional sources he claims authority from. This is particularly an issue on the horary forum where the book 'The Horary Textbook' is many people's idea of what traditional horary amounts to.

Moreover, a whole generation of Frawley students are now perpetuating this fallacy. Of course maybe that is really the fault of students who look no deeper than Frawley's books or course materials.

However, as you point out John Frawley is not here to defend himself so why pick holes in his approach? I really wish he would come on skyscript (or anywhere) to explain his position. However, he has never done that to my knowledge. With his financial success and hordes of adoring students maybe he feels its not worth the energy replying to those who question his 'traditional' methods.

MarkC wrote:
....

The simple fact is John Frawley, through his books and courses, has arguably become the most influential traditional astrologer in the world.What he writes in his books has had and is having a tremendous impact in regards how people perceive traditional astrology.

In a sense his popularity is both a strength and a weakness for traditional astrology. On the one hand he is helping to popularise much of the tradition. On the other hand his often idiosyncratic take on traditional astrology is frequently what people perceive as the real thing. Like all great popularisers Frawley has taken the route of simplication at the expense of complex detail. Unfortunately, some simplifications such as his approach to aspects and reception has totally distorted the traditional understanding in this area.

If you had read the Real Astrology you would get the point. There Frawley uses merciless wit to trash modern astrology as next to worthless and sets up traditional astrology as 'The Real Astrology'. Unfortunately, as the self appointed champion of the traditional approach Frawley does not always practice what he preaches....

Why is that a problem? Because the ripple effects of this are that people come on forums like skyscript thinking they have learned a traditional approach when they have not. As a result they need to go through a de-conditioning process to separate Frawley's ideas from the traditional sources he claims authority from. This is particularly an issue on the horary forum where the book 'The Horary Textbook' is many people's idea of what traditional horary amounts too.

Moreover, a whole generation of Frawley students are now perpetuating this fallacy. Of course maybe that is really the fault of students who look no deeper than Frawley's books or course materials.

....

MarkC, I think this is an excellent and balanced assessment.

Tho I haven't read his "Real Astrology", and not sure now that I ever will if he "trashes" all modern astrology as "next to worthless"! That would include great astrologers like Ivy Jacobson-Goldstein and George Llewellyn I suppose? I haven't seen anything in his writings to even rival them and doubt he could hold a candle to Max Heindel either in diagnosing a medical condition.

There is usually something one can learn from most books be it modern or traditional. And I am glad to have Frawley's Horary book. Like you and others said, part of the fault lies with the beginning student who never looks any further than Frawley in their studies and many tend to put him on a pedestal. That is an easy thing to slip into. The way one learns first, is often hard to let go.

A little off point here regarding modern astrology: As I've often said, if Lilly were alive today, he'd use light bulbs like everyone else and he'd assign Uranus to electricity! There is a point where holding rigidly to traditional technique becomes ridiculous (imho). I notice Deb often uses Neptune in her analysis. I believe modern astrology can be used with traditional techniques.


RC

Hi RC

Actually the Real Astrology is very funny in parts. Its an important book and worth reading. I have all of Frawley's books. I certainly would not advocate avoiding his books. Frawley has a natural teaching ability that comes out in his books. As I indicated the problem is only if you rely on Frawley as your sole source. He is more guilty than most other traditional writers of not sourcing his ideas.

I agree with you on Lilly. I am sure with an active mind he would be open to new ideas. I do not think traditional astrology needs to be in a time warp. For example, I use outer planets with cetain restrictions in horary charts.

Still I think its good to get a solid foundation in the basics: signs, planets, houses, aspects, dignities and reception. Following traditional astrology is not like joining a fundamentalist cult. Rather its about returning to the source: discovering the most ancient traditions of astrology and finding out why it developed the way it did. A great example of that is Deb Houlding's book 'The Houses: Temples of The Sky'. If you really want to know about the origins of houses and why they have the associations they do, this is a fantastic starting point. However the same is true for traditional astrology if you really want to understand the origins of all the tools of the astrologer. I think any astrologer whatever their style or method can only be enriched in the process.

Traditional astrology is not monolithic. There are differences between those following a hellenistic, medieval or early modern approach and lots of variations within those categories too. I am interested in the whole tradition of astrology from Bablyonian star myths to 20th century developments like Uranian astrology. I favour things like traditional house meanings not because they are just traditional but because they make more sense and seem to work. If it aint broke why fix it?

Mark

My initial feeling was that this was a vote for or against Frawley. As astrologers we are a small community where we all are important to eachother in spite of our differences of opinion and of approach. I'm not sure it is good practice to get overly concerned with what the other horse is getting up to as this may lead participants to go into a defensive mode rather than run their own race and deliver their personal best. Prehaps I get a bit frustrated myself when Frawley is quoted as law. Prehaps I haven't bought Frawley because I don't want to spend time on his work. It doesn't really matter. Different heads should be working on different tasks. Frawley has his own style that is reaching out to some people. Go beyond! My advice is to keep ones nose down to the ground, continue to explore new ideas, deliver good work and good predictions. This way we may be remembered and appreciated for our ingeniousity of art rather than by number of obstructions.

Planets come and go - but aspects and orb are here to stay, I am sure!

In the medieval and renaissance approach horary provided the basic grounding in astrology before more complex areas like electional, natal and finally mundane were tackled.

I recall having read something similar to this several years ago. I never believed it then and I don't believe it now. But who am I to differ with the consensus of expert opinion?

From John Gadbury (Genethlialogia, 1658):

Having treated largely of the Doctrine of Nativities, (that nothing may be wanting unto the Reader of this Book) I shall in the next place, speak somewhat of the judgement of Horary Questions.

It is an Axiome most true, that all people endued with Reason, are sollicitous and desirous to know their future Estate and Condition. Now, we know that for some persons to obtain their Nativities, is as impossible, as for a man to stop the Course of the Planets. Astrologers, therefore, have made use of the Doctrine of Horary Questions, to supply the defect.

To borrow a phrase, astrological practice is not a seamless garment cloaking the subsidiary altars of a monolithic, uniform Great Tradition. While at bottom it retains its unity, it is as variegated as life itself. There is no formula that can contain and express it adequately.

I think Frawley teaches that both moitie and orbs can be safely ignored as it is more important to consider whether one planet beholds another. Planets in the same sign behold one another even if one is in the 1st degree of the sign and the other in the 29th.

From Anthony Louis (Horary Astrology Plain & Simple, 1998):

Some modern astrologers (McEvers, for example) disregard orbs and allow significators and the Moon to perfect all the aspects they can before leaving their signs. In this sense, the signs of the zodiac are large orbs of influence. The signs of the zodiac are natural boundaries because each sign represents a different area of experience. When a planet moves into a new sign, it enters a new situation and becomes less related to the original circumstances surrounding the question. This idea of signs as discreet areas of experience also gave rise to the notion of critical degrees marking the cusps between signs or between other divisions of the zodiac.

I think Frawley teaches that both moitie and orbs can be safely ignored as it is more important to consider whether one planet beholds another. Planets in the same sign behold one another even if one is in the 1st degree of the sign and the other in the 29th.

Yes that right. Of course with slower or fast moving significators perfection might not happen even in this approach. The exception where Frawley seems to allow an sort of 'orb' is planets just across the sign boundary where he advocates a 3 degree orb. This sounds a little like a hellenistic approach. Certainly, some hellenistic astrologers seemed to indicate aspects were especially important within 3 degrees of application. However, that certainly included in -sign applying aspects. One hellenistic source I have seen suggests the Moon was allowed an orb of 13 degrees to match its daily motion.

I think its highly unlikely that Frawley developed his approach from a deep study of hellenistic astrology as nearly all the sources he quotes are medieval or renaissance. While nearly all astrologers in that period used moeity orbs there were variations. No doubt Frawley formed the opinion moeity orbs didn't work from his practical chart experience. He is certainly entitled to his opinion on that. Its for sure he didn't get such ideas from his horary teacher Olivia Barclay. Her other former pupils such as Lee Lehman and Sue Ward do not seem to advocate this approach as far as I am aware.

The quote from Anthony Louis is interesting. I think a major influence on many American horary astrologers is the work of Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson and her book 'Simplified Horary Astrology' (1960). Although she follows the modern approach of set orbs for aspect types she suggests the Moon does not need orbs in a sign due to its rapid motion.

Following on from Andrew Bevan's comments yesterday, I agree that this thread is wandering into dangerous territory because in places there is too much speculation on what John Frawley thinks, where he developed his knowledge from, and what his motivation is. I find it hard to call on this because, on the one hand, anyone who is taken as a professional authority is obviously going to attract attention by comments published in ?textbooks?. On the other hand, let?s remember that John Frawley is not speaking for himself here.

Maurice McCann opened this thread with his view on Frawley?s approach and the comment:

Astrology without orbs is unworkable. What do others say?

Its unfortunate that the thread is so personalised and I suppose that is inevitable, but I do agree with Andrew that any future comments really ought to be focussed on orbs in astrology and not John Frawley as an author.

Hello Deb,

I accept your points and concerns.

In fairness though Maurice McCann's full opening statement was:

John Frawley in his book 'The Horary Textbook' advocates banishing the use of orbs. If this were taken seriously then the result would be that reading horoscopes would become impossible. Astrology without orbs is unworkable. What do others say?

The focus of the thread involved John Frawley from the outset. I cannot deny I have quite strong views on this topic. You probably noticed. Its quite hard to take personalities out of astrology, if not impossible. Lilly was a person with a particular approach to astrology, that still influences us 350 years later. In our own era John Frawley's approach to astrology is having a major impact on the wider astrological community and I felt it was legitimate to discuss that. However, I accept the thread lacked any dialectic and risked looking like a 'get John Frawley' campaign at times. I agree it is unfortunate that the original basis of thread was so directed at just John Frawley. As a result the opportunity to learn and be challenged about orbs in general was diminished. On reflection such threads probably create more heat than light.

I was happy to leave this thread in peace after Andrew's post the other day. There was a lot of wisdom in it. It rather reminded me of the Quaker saying' Better to light one candle than curse the darkness'. That is constructive way to look at things. However, his latest post did introduce Frawley's approach on aspects back into the discussion.

I think this thread has outlived any usefulness it might have had. It is also getting quite repetitive. At the same time , I think it would be quite unrealistic as you suggest to have any further discussion on this thread regarding orbs without Frawley's approach even being included. After the way this thread has flowed since the outset it seems far too late in the day to try and re-direct its course at this stage. In that sense maybe the best way to finish off this thread, for all concerned, would be to lock it to stop it rising from the dead again like a bad tempered Zombie?

Mark