John Frawley has sent me (for publication) a copy of his recent Preface to a collection of Apprentice articles that have been translated into Russian. Astrologers who follow his methods might want to read his comments about his definition of 'tradition' and his changed views regarding some techniques.

Full details (with a link to the Preface) are available via the link on the home page; or you can go straight to the PDF file of the Preface at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/Russianpreface.pdf

Deb

Hmm... What this Preface boils down to is that whatever John likes is part of the Tradition even if it is new or indifferent/hostile to astrology (such as the Abrahamitic religions), while whatever John doesn't like is 'an irrelevant add-on' or 'rubbish' even if it has been along since the beginning of horoscopic astrology (such as the hyleg). Basically, then, Tradition is a synonym of 'good'. Much as I enjoy John's writings in general, it is hard to take this definition seriously.

[T]here are words that have become merely complimentary ? words which once had a definable sense and which now are nothing more than noises of vague approval [...] This is one of the ways in which words die.
? C.S. Lewis

Martin Gansten wrote:Hmm... Much as I enjoy John's writings in general, it is hard to take this definition seriously .

I completely agree. What is the astrology rooted in relativism?
It sounds like Pope's statements. I'm a Catholic but this sounds too much even for an Italian
Margherita

It's possible Frawley is right about the Hyleg/Alcocoden/Anareta, what's come down to us is quite a mish-mash of rules and contradictions; his dismissal of the method would carry more weight if he provided the results of his research in this area rather than simply stating he thinks it was a metaphor someone applied to the chart; hopefully the text contains a more complete argument in support of his position.

His key point, that Astrology demands "a willingness to change ourselves so that we may understand, not a readiness to change the astrology so that it may be understood." is, I believe, highly relevant.

Traditional astrologers are often loathe to question, let alone abandon, techniques used by their pet ancient astrologer while modern astrologers are often too quick to toss traditional techniques for the 'new and improved'.

janeg wrote:It's possible Frawley is right about the Hyleg/Alcocoden/Anareta

No. Hyleg doctrine appears since, at least, Valens and Ptolemy. Valens mentions that it is coming from Critodemus (also mentioned by Firmicus). Of course it is still garbled, but this is to protect the material from idiots and villians, not because it is some silly metaphor. Frawley's argument seems too much like "This is too difficult, let's forget about it", though it is probably more coming out of his Catholicism, particularily that only God can know when you will die.

janeg wrote:His key point, that Astrology demands "a willingness to change ourselves so that we may understand, not a readiness to change the astrology so that it may be understood." is, I believe, highly relevant.

This I can agree with; but much of what else he is saying is at cross-purposes with this statement. So do a lot of people, I suppose.

Hi GR ... I know the technique has been around for along time, it's mentioned in Dorotheus, Valens, Paulus, Ptolemy, Firmicus, etc. Just sometimes wonder if it may be a sort of 'short-cut' to determining length of life vs the more tedious methods of working out ascensions and directions to the anareta.

I agree Frawley's argument, as given, is weak; I'm assuming he has done investigations which have led him to his realization and has included his results in the text, hard to know without reading the text itself.

This isn't a new work though - it's just a preface to a translation. I don't have all Frawley's books, but to the best of my knowledge he hasn't published anything about natal (except in a passing remark), though he's working on a natal textbook, I believe.

GR wrote:

janeg wrote:It's possible Frawley is right about the Hyleg/Alcocoden/Anareta

Frawley's argument seems too much like "This is too difficult, let's forget about it", though it is probably more coming out of his Catholicism, particularily that only God can know when you will die.

Well, I'm sure that many Catholic astrologers used it in MiddleAges and Renaissance, considering that the length of native's life it's the first thing an astrologer would calculate.

So if Frawley writes like that because his conversion it's a very strange statement.
But "relativism" comes directly from Pope's words, it's one of the slogans of Benedetto XVI. I see Frawley tends to the traditional - read right wing side of Catholic religion, it's easy to guess from that preface.
Margherita

Gjiada wrote:So if Frawley writes like that because his conversion it's a very strange statement.
But "relativism" comes directly from Pope's words, it's one of the slogans of Benedetto XVI. I see Frawley tends to the traditional - read right wing side of Catholic religion, it's easy to guess from that preface.

I agree: the 'astrology rooted in relativism' argument is both demonstrably wrong and rather silly. Converts (to whatever religion or ideology) do naturally tend to go the whole hog. But despite Frawley's attempt to claim Christianity (along with Judaism and Islam) for the western astrological tradition, the catechism of the Catholic Church summarily condemns astrology as infringing on the divine monopoly of foreknowledge:

2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

One may of course point out that some (not all) previous popes have been more lenient in their views. But if one does believe in 'the operation of the Holy Spirit [...] the recognition that a tradition, like an individual, can grow in wisdom', then the latest official position on astrology must surely be the best so far.

This isn't a new work though - it's just a preface to a translation.

Exactly, It's a translation of previous works and he's explaining that some of the things in those works are things he no longer accepts. Then he gives the reasons why he no longer accepts things that were presented by him as "traditional astrology."

It's fun to read John Frawley delineating Pluto or using midpoints though. Viewpoints change.

I don't have all Frawley's books, but to the best of my knowledge he hasn't published anything about natal (except in a passing remark), though he's working on a natal textbook, I believe.

Yes he is working on such a book and it may be published later this year. He did write on nativities at various times in the Apprentice. He delineated the charts of such people as Milton, Shakespeare, Janis Joplin, Paganini, Robert Johnson, and others in addition to articles on temperament, the significator of the manners, the Moon in the nativity, etc. There is a bunch of his stuff on natal astrology out there if one wants to search for it.

Tom

Early, in the third paragraph on the first page, Mr. Frawley writes:

The distinction between what is traditional and what is not is often seen as a temporal one. Old stuff is traditional; new stuff is not. This is an error ? a fact that I see more clearly now than when writing The Real Astrology.

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. This sounds like a maturing Frawley, a departure from the Frawley who seemed too comfortably smug and elitist for me to spend time reading. Yet this seemingly more open and accepting, but concentrated and focused Frawley is immediately attacked for relativism. There are folks who find significance in a bread crumb dropped by an ancient astrologer simply because it was dropped by an ancient astrologer. 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 ( ). 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.

Gjiada wrote: Well, I'm sure that many Catholic astrologers used it in MiddleAges and Renaissance, considering that the length of native's life it's the first thing an astrologer would calculate.

Yes that certainly seems like the "standard" method.

Gjiada wrote: So if Frawley writes like that because his conversion it's a very strange statement.
But "relativism" comes directly from Pope's words, it's one of the slogans of Benedetto XVI. I see Frawley tends to the traditional - read right wing side of Catholic religion, it's easy to guess from that preface.
Margherita

It is a bit funny considering His Holiness writes these things from a church whose building was astrologically elected, by Luca Guarico, IIRC, my favorite Inquisitioner