Hi, Gabriel
would you have this election ?

Kirk wrote: On page 2 Frawley writes about how traditions change, but as long as the philosophical essence remains the foundation and core of the tradition ? that which is the tradition ? survives.

But has that happened?

Kirk wrote: This sounds like a maturing Frawley, ... Yet this seemingly more open and accepting, but concentrated and focused Frawley is immediately attacked for relativism.

Well, this is the same Frawley that made up some weird doctrine of 'reception' and claimed it was the real thing, or at least let it be believed that it was such a thing. I don't seem some big difference here between this current statement and his previous behavior of <i>deciding of the rest of us</i> what the Tradition(TM) is or is not.

Kirk wrote: There are folks who find significance in a bread crumb dropped by an ancient astrologer simply because it was dropped by an ancient astrologer.

Really Kirk, your insults have to improve. Couldn't they be rat droppings as opposed to bread crumbs?

Kirk wrote: These people are delighted with the speck held between their thumb and forefinger while shouting 'Relativism!' over their shoulder at the others who are contemplating the loaf it came from ( ).

But really, is that what's happening? Or are some people bringing in rice cakes and calling them baguettes?

Kirk wrote: From the preface I get the impression of someone who has deeply reflected on his topic and has progressed to a more mature state of understanding. That type of person and his development is so much more interesting than the speck collectors.

Or is it the continued deviations of astrology through an alien metaphysic, namely Traditionalism(TM) (which has almost the same pedigree as Theosophy, also being born out of the 19th century)?

yuzuru wrote:Hi, Gabriel
would you have this election ?

I'd gather it would be in the <i>Tractatus Astrologicus</i>, though this incident could be one of those apocryphal sayings that I easily confuse for fact Margherita could probably tell you more then I can, since she has already translated some Guarico.

Thanks
I am hugely interested in any real electional work that was done in ancient times, as we have so few examples of real elections.

Couldn't they be rat droppings as opposed to bread crumbs?

Why would anyone be delighted with the rat turd they're holding between their thumb and forefinger? Why are they even holding it?

Kirk wrote:Why would anyone be delighted with the rat turd they're holding between their thumb and forefinger? Why are they even holding it?

With the level of contempt you betray when talking about 'crumb collectors' you might as well be talking about rat droppings.

Hmmm
well gentlemen, Deb gave her message, and everything other than that is not exactly the point.
So I am freezing the thread for a while.

It looks like Frawley's book on natal astrology will be just as controversial as his Horary Textbook. Frawley's horary book was criticised for its apparent abandonment of the traditional medieval/early modern use moeity orbs and his idiosyncratic take on mutual reception. His suggestion that hyleg, anareta, and alcholden can be ditched will no doubt draw criticism from some quarters too.

Still, there is no denying Frawley has an outstanding ability to present traditional astrology in a way that is accessible to a wide number of people. He undoubtably cuts corners here and there but in that respect he is typical of all great popularisers. The problem is not really Frawley but students who want spoon fed all their astrology from one source.

My real concern with this article and other statements I have read by John Frawley is the philosophical stance he is propogating to the astrological community. It is one thing for a person to express their faith. No fair minded person can take issue with that. However, as I see it Frawley is seeking to claim the whole tradition of western astrology for his own world view.

In particular when he states:

Nor is it true that anything written a long time ago is part of that tradition.
The western tradition of astrology is a montheistic tradition. It is the astrology of the Jews, the Christians, and the Moslems. As such, it stands over and against any astrology rooted in relativism. Egyptian astrology; Hellenistic astrology; Vedic Astrology; the astrology generally practised today: these are not part of the western tradition of astrology , and because of the philosophies within which they are framed, have far more in common with each other than they do with that tradition.

Frawley also states:

'

...the words with which Ibn Ezra began his textbook are the most important words ever written in astrology: the beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord'

So Frawley is stating here explicitly that the tradition of western astrology is not just monotheistic but centred on the three religions of the book: Judaism; Islam and Christianity. This seems to be the 'essence' running through Frawley's definition of traditional astrology. Note also that he sees approaches such as hellenistic astrology in his words 'against' or in opposition to the western tradition of astrology. If Frawley simply said this was his personal belief I wouldn't have a problem with this. However, he is doing far more than that. He is seeking to universalise and reify this position as the essential nature of traditional astrology.

There are a number of problems with this position. Not least that it air brushes significant parts of history out of the astrological equation.

From polytheistic ancient Mesopotania for example we still use astrological practices such as the 12 signs, the exaltations, planetary hours etc. The basis of the astrological tradition developed into its recognizable form in the hellenistic era. Houses, aspects, traditional dignities, planetary sect, the lots/parts and all the other basics of horoscopic astrology came together at this time.

The Roman Empire in which this astrology spread was a multi-faith one. In fact its religious plurality was more like the modern world than the medieval one. Neo-platonists, neo-pythagoreans, hermeticists, gnostics, stoics, materialists, sceptics were all present along with cults such as the those of Isis, Mithras, Orphius etc all co-existing along with Judaism and the new religion of Christianity within the Empire.

I wonder how many founders of the astrological tradition would pass the Frawley test? Ptolemy?, Dorotheus?, Valens?, Manilius?, Porphyry? . It is undeniable that astrology existed in an increasingly Christian Empire in both the East and West. However, this came long after ther astrological tradition had taken root. Maybe Firmicus was a Christian as some have suggested. However, he was clearly relying on sources that were not. When astrology passed to the Islamic world it was at least initially closely mimicing its hellenistic origins. Rather than take the view that western astrology has always been montheistic wouldn't it be more accurate to acknowledge that practitioners of the art have held all kinds of religious views?

Equally, rather than presenting the passage of astrology as divided between Islamic and pre-Islamic astrology do not the surviving astrological texts indicate something more of a continuum going right back to Ptolemy and Dorotheus and carried on to the end of the traditional era in figures like Lilly and Morin? Of course there were changes such as the development of quadrant houses but that was surely just one indicator of the vitality of the ongoing astrological tradition?

It is undeniable the tradition moved into increasingly monotheistic cultures from the 6th and 7th century onwards and persisted there until the end of the medieval period. However, this does not mean the astrological tradition is inherently monotheistic as Frawley maintains.

The dichotomy Frawley presents is, I would suggest, based on a distortion of astrological history to suit his own personal religious world view.

MarkC wrote:The dichotomy Frawley presents is, I would suggest, based on a distortion of astrological history to suit his own personal religious world view.

I don't usually post just to express agreement, but to what Mark has just written I really want to say, Amen!

The western tradition of astrology is a monotheistic tradition. It is the astrology of the Jews, the Christians, and the Moslems.

An interesting treatise http://www.smoe.org/arcana/diss.html of Lester Ness shows that Judaism was quite open towards astrology. As long as God's supremacy was held on to, the practice of astrology and astral magic was not considered a problem.

yuzuru wrote:Hi, Gabriel
would you have this election ?

Here is an article. Unfortunately the jstor website is not freely available. I can read it in the university library. Maybe you can walk into a university library near your living place to get this article from the internet.

The Foundation Horoscope(s) for St. Peter's Basilica, Rome, 1506: Choosing a Time, Changing the Storia - Mary Quinlan-McGrath
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3080339
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3080339.pdf


There are different charts. I'll give some data. 18 april 1506, must be Julian calendar, Sun is in 7?12 Leo. Ascendant 16 Cancer, MC 25 Pisces
18 April 1506, 14:50 "of the clock", and 17 April 1506, 21:21 P.M.
The first chart doesn't give values for the houses between the cardinal ones but somewhere Regiomontanus house system is mentioned in a correction chart by Sigismundo.

I copied some details:
"Converting these to a common style produces an interesting ambiguity. The time counted from noon is the same as our 9:21 A.M. of 18 April. This matches with the sky at that time, when, as Gaurico notes, 16 degrees of Cancer was rising on the eastern horizon. Italian clock time normally meant hours and minutes counted after sunset, although up to a half hour of darkness could be added to sunset before the counting began. Since sunset occurred at approximately 6:52 P.M. on this date in Rome, 14:50 hours after that would indicate a time around 9:42 A.M. If darkness were added the time could be as late as 10:12 A.M. on 18 April.21"

Reference source:
The Foundation Horoscope(s) for St. Peter's Basilica, Rome, 1506: Choosing a Time, Changing the Storia
Mary Quinlan-McGrath
Isis, Vol. 92, No. 4 (Dec., 2001), pp. 716-741
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society
p. 726-727.

Thank you Eddy!



Note: using Julian Calender, in April 18, I got Sun in TAurus, not Leo!