Discussion on John Frawley's The Horary Textbook

unteruber

Well-known member
This thread is created to discuss John Frawley's classic book The Horary Textbook. The aim is to encourage systematic study of the book and discuss it with the lay and expert members of the community.

41fJBWXomGL._SS500_.jpg


For those who want a hard-copy you can get it from -

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Horary-Textbook-John-Frawley/dp/0953977439

There are e-copies on the web which can be downloaded, a google search will help in finding relevant links.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Aquarius358

Well-known member
This thread is created to discuss John Frawley's classic book The Horary Textbook. The aim is to encourage systematic study of the book and discuss it with the lay and expert members of the community.
... Thanks.

Hi - Sounds like a good idea to me ...
Where did you want to start? With the chapter on Essential Dignity?
Or with Ch 8 on Reception?
Do you want to call for questions on any particular chapter, perhaps? ______
 

Paul_

Account Closed
One thing I would point out in advance is that Frawley appears to use a reversed logic for reception. This may mean that all other astrologers who do not go chiefly by Frawley's book will have a different understanding of reception.
 

Aquarius358

Well-known member
One thing I would point out in advance is that Frawley appears to use a reversed logic for reception. This may mean that all other astrologers who do not go chiefly by Frawley's book will have a different understanding of reception.

Hi - Yes, I've seen your exchanges on the skyscript forum - with Dastar I think??

Anyway, first up, I must say that I consider Frawley is far too good and too clever an astrologer to have slipped and made use of "reversed logic" regarding reception in relationship horaries - especially in a text on the subject of Horary - a teaching text, no less. If you've ever read any of his Astrologer's Apprentice magazines, you'll know what I'm talking about!! His wit and clarity is awesome ...

What is think is the difference is the use of LANGUAGE. This is why I always prefer to say : Planet A receives Planet B by Sign / Exaltn or whatever. To use active voice in English is far clearer than using passive voice (which would be to say "Planet B is received by Planet A.")

I also think the way he describes reception is a great way to talk about the QUALITY of the reception - ie Sign/Domicile = strong liking/loving;
Exaltation = on a pedestal, sort of (often unwisely) revered ... and so on, down the scale.___
 

Paul_

Account Closed
Anyway, first up, I must say that I consider Frawley is far too good and too clever an astrologer to have slipped and made use of "reversed logic" regarding reception in relationship horaries - especially in a text on the subject of Horary - a teaching text, no less. If you've ever read any of his Astrologer's Apprentice magazines, you'll know what I'm talking about!! His wit and clarity is awesome ...

Hi Aquarius

I am aware and familiar with Frawley and his work. Including his use of reception. He does indeed reverse it. I have not given any rationale as to why he might do this (I've certainly not implied its due to a lack of wit on his part). But the fact is that he does. I have no idea why he does.

If you are familiar with other authors, then you will see quickly what I mean. Read Lilly yourself, which is where Frawley claims to source most of his horary, or better yet the sources that Lilly uses: Ibn Ezra, Bonatti, MassaAllah etc.

What is think is the difference is the use of LANGUAGE. This is why I always prefer to say : Planet A receives Planet B by Sign / Exaltn or whatever. To use active voice in English is far clearer than using passive voice (which would be to say "Planet B is received by Planet A.")

No, I understand the situation, I am not simply confused by nomenclature. Frawley, at least in his book on horary, does indeed actually reverse who is receiving who. Also I do not agree, on a separate note, that talking of like and love is really the best way to discuss reception as it introduces some foggy reasoning at times, particularly in romance questions where, quite seriously, I've seen people say "He doesn't love you cos there's no reception" and this is extremely damaging and dangerous. As a metaphor and mnemonic it's okay, but it can be taken far too seriously and taken too far by some. Remember, that book is meant as a beginner's guide only. That needs to be understood.

If you read more by other authors, particularly non-20th century authors you will understand what I mean more.

Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed Frawley's book and I'd recommend it as a beginner's guide, which is what it's meant to be, but it is not an exhaustive source for horary, nor is it meant to be, and he does have some idiosynchracies and reception is one of them. That doesn't take away from the other values of the book of course.
 
Last edited:

Aquarius358

Well-known member
Paul, I hasten to assure you that I’m quite literate in terms of horary astrology! It’s disappointing you thought you needed to specify a reading list for me. However, ... :)

What do you mean when you say JF uses “reverse logic”. Could you explain succinctly what you mean by that? What idiosyncracies? You’ve made some very sweeping statements above.

You’ve given your opinion that there is “foggy reasoning” and even “extremely damaging and dangerous” interpretations because people take JF “far too seriously.” OK. That’s your opinion and I respect that, but it’s not evidence that JF is responsible for the “foggy reasoning” etc etc .

And no, I’m not talking about the nomenclature, the naming of the parts of Reception. That’s all generally clearly understood I think. I’m speaking about the difficulties a lot of people reasonably have trying to write down their interpretation of who receives who and how. Frawley has taken a leap and put a lot of this into Plain English. I’m glad you think his work is worthwhile.____
 
Last edited:

Aquarius358

Well-known member
Hi all -
The way I think Reception can be better understood and interpreted is in two steps -

1. First, establish WHO receives WHO and whether or not both planets involved receive each other in the same way, or in a ‘mixed’ way.

Some people speak of this as “received by” rather than “receives.” This turns the planets around. For instance, if I say Moon is at 3 Aries, then I can say “Sun receives Moon by Exaltation.” I can also say “Moon is received by Sun by Exaltation” and the two planets swap places in the sentence by virtue of the change in voice from active to passive. This is what I think confuses some people: one writer uses active; another writer uses passive voice.

Frawley doesn’t do this. He notes that this kind of language is too pedantic. He jumps straight in. ‘Sun exalts Moon’ is what he recommends and it’s easily understood that Sun thinks Moon is pretty special or highly thought of by Sun even in 21stC language terms. That’s all very well. But there’s no similar verb to be easily derived from “Triplicity” or “Sign” or “Term” or “Face” as there is from “Exaltation.” Most frustrating for anyone following Frawley.

2. Then there’s the question of how to interpret the LEVEL of Reception - ie Reception by Sign, by Exaltation, and so on. I believe Frawley’s interpretative language about the levels of reception are excellent, real-live ones and are not unfortunate metaphors - they describe very nicely what happens in the 21st Century English speaking world in respect to relationships, jobs, etc.

So I use step 1 following my language preference and then Step 2 following Frawley’s descriptives.
Cheers____
 
Last edited:

Paul_

Account Closed
Paul, I hasten to assure you that I’m quite literate in terms of horary astrology! It’s disappointing you thought you needed to specify a reading list for me. However, ... :)

Not a reading list, a list of sources that demonstrate the historicity of the approach. If you are as literate as you say, then you will see that Frawley does indeed reverse the logic for reception.
So I might ask then, what other authors have you read who, for example, AGREES with Frawley's approach to reception? In fact what other authors have you read in general? I'm confused how anyone could be quite literate and not agree with my points because they are not subtle nor occluded, it's quite an obvious reverse.

What do you mean when you say JF uses “reverse logic”. Could you explain succinctly what you mean by that? What idiosyncracies? You’ve made some very sweeping statements above.

Not really, I've made some very minor points actually, namely that Frawley reverses reception. This is apparent and plain to see by anyone who reads Frawley's book on horary and then reads any other source.

You’ve given your opinion that there is “foggy reasoning” and even “extremely damaging and dangerous” interpretations because people take JF “far too seriously.” OK. That’s your opinion and I respect that, but it’s not evidence that JF is responsible for the “foggy reasoning” etc etc .

Actually I said that in romance questions it CAN be quite dangerous when people take his statements too seriously. I have not blamed JF for that though have I? I do blame JF for the foggy reasoning and lack of clarity on the issue however. This is in the context of an otherwise very insightful and clear book - this one particular technique certainly falls down there.

The fact is that Frawley reverses the idea of what is received - it is not, as you seem to be attached to implying, that he simply rewords the order of the reception and that this confuses people. It's just that he actually reverses it.

In the context of examining his work this is an important point to be aware of.
 

tikana

Well-known member
Paul

if you look for John Frawley on FB, there was a discussion on his reasoning on flipping the reception. I asked Deb Houlding when she was in SF giving a lecture, she explained William Lilly's reception quite well. Logically, William Lilly makes sense. From my own horaries, I have to say William Lilly takes has validity..Romance horaries are lets just say can bring a lot of heartaches to people. it is not only reception between L1 and L7, it is Sun/Moon, where is L7 - if it is in 1st house, obviously the lord of 7th loves L1 more. Each love horaries has to be looked from diff angles.

cheers
T
 
Last edited:

Paul_

Account Closed
Paul

if you look for John Frawley on FB, there was a discussion on his reasoning on flipping the reception. I asked Deb Houlding when she was in SF giving a lecture, she explained William Lilly's reception quite well. Logically, William Lilly makes sense. From my own horaries, I have to say William Lilly takes has validity..Romance horaries are lets just say can bring a lot of heartaches to people. it is not only reception between L1 and L7, it is Sun/Moon, where is L7 - if it is in 1st house, obviously the lord of 7th loves L1 more. Each love horaries has to be looked from diff angles.

cheers
T

Thank you Tikana

I'm not on FB but I'd be interested if someone could copy his reply here?

As for Deb H and William Lilly's approach - I agree with you, I'd only just point out that it's not William Lilly's approach as much as EVERYONE ELSE'S approach except JF.
 

tikana

Well-known member
HI Paul

yeah of course William Lilly wasnt the one who "invented" the reception, it is just i am William Lilly's lazy student.
Basically, the way John or whoever did explanation (i am not on FB atm so i cant quote) said that something along the lines and i am giving you one of my charts.

The question was about a lady asking if she should apply at named place for employment
Mars ruled Asce
saturn ruled 10th - Saturn in libra

Does Saturn reject Mars or does Mars reject Saturn?
I asked a person do you actually want this job? the querent said NO but i have to have the job to pay the bills. If i were to look at Frawley's way, Saturn would have nothing to offer to mars cause there is nothing going on... and the querent does not like being in sales. Mars is weak by term or face i forgot plus it was in the house of joy... this says that the querent even though so weak still has some control over her present predicament. She is very well qualified for the job it is just she hates the job.
so with that answer which one fits better? of course, traditional reception. did she get a job? NOPE.. she never applied.

cheers
T
 
Last edited:

summer92

Well-known member
I'm a begingger and I'm not sure if it's even possible to mix it up,but I prefer Frawley's method for horaries regarding relationships and use Lilly for the rest including educational horaries.It worked the best that way for me.
 

Lakewind

Member
I came to start a thread on Frawley vs. Traditionals on aspects, but find this thread is already started ( and stalled) as usual ,on reception as described by Frawley vs as Paul says Everybody else! Paul and his comrades have tried for some time to explain reception to me in a non Frawlian way, but to little avail. So now what I do is look to both planets and see if both "receive" per Frawley. If they do, I feel reception is there. If not, I ask Paul! lol

Traditionals say reception takes place only on a trine, I think. Am I wrong here Paul? Frawley says any aspect will do, but some , like the sextile, only show a possibility. MY question is this: as a practical matter, have any of you seen good results eventuate when an approaching square is the only aspect? In the most recent chart I did , Moon in Saturn is approaching Saturn in Libra, daytime chart, in a square. Reception would be by sign I guess, but the lack of a trine would not mean success to a Traditional.

I would also like to say that ignoring powerhouse planets like Uranus and PLuto, as Traditionals do for the most part, doesn't make sense to me, just because they" don't reflect light".

OK, what's your experience, and not your belief?
 

Paul_

Account Closed
I came to start a thread on Frawley vs. Traditionals on aspects, but find this thread is already started ( and stalled) as usual ,on reception as described by Frawley vs as Paul says Everybody else! Paul and his comrades have tried for some time to explain reception to me in a non Frawlian way, but to little avail. So now what I do is look to both planets and see if both "receive" per Frawley. If they do, I feel reception is there. If not, I ask Paul! lol

Tbh I'm not really sure why reception causes such confusion. I'll try explaining it again:
If one planet (Planet A) is in the dignities of another planet (Planet B), then the second planet (Planet B) will receive the first planet (Planet A), provided they are in aspect.

So here's some examples:
Planet A is in Cancer, the Moon receives Planet A.
Planet A is in Aries, Mars receives Planet A.
Planet A is in Libra, Venus receives Planet A.
Planet A is in Capricorn, Saturn receives Planet A.

It's really simple. In the above examples I've just used domicile, but you can receive by any dignity - though preferably domicile and exaltation. If not one of those, it's best to get two minor dignities. Here's some more examples:

Planet A is in Taurus, Venus receives Planet A, but so would the Moon.
Planet A is in Aries, Mars receives Planet A, but so would the Sun.

In reality, with reception, we want the two planets to aspect. So really it's more like this:
Planet A is in Taurus and in aspect to Venus, Venus will receive Planet A.

Reception offers help/aid/protection, so in the above examples, Venus aids or protects Planet A. Another way to look at it is like opening itself up to the influence of the planet, it's like literally openings its arms to embrace it, or like opening the doors of its house to that planet. So venus protects/embraces/aids/helps/is open to the influence of, Planet A.

It's very simple. Ignore Frawley's descriptions and you'll never go wrong on this.

Traditionals say reception takes place only on a trine, I think. Am I wrong here Paul? Frawley says any aspect will do, but some , like the sextile, only show a possibility.

Receptions describe an aspect so any aspect will do. Because of the aid offered to the planet, some of the stress/tension with aspects like a square are mitigated. So a reception with two planets who square one another may actually act like a trine in practice. That's because receptions affect the relationship between two planets, and the relationship between two planets is normally seen by the aspect.

MY question is this: as a practical matter, have any of you seen good results eventuate when an approaching square is the only aspect?

Yes, I asked a question about a job. I was Saturn and received the job by square. I got the job. (I'm going by memory so it might have been they who received me, but it was by square anyway). I remember this because I originally didn't think I'd get the job as I felt the square may prove too difficult to do, however, notice I was Saturn, the slower planet, this is good news for me as other planets race to perfect aspects with me which I can accept or deny. That was the case in this situation, they approached me about the job and chased me over it, then I went for the interview but wasn't sure if I'd get offered it. The square with reception indicated I would. I nearly missed the reception though if I remember right.

Reception would be by sign I guess, but the lack of a trine would not mean success to a Traditional.

I think it should be clear now that this isn't true. Lilly even has examples I'm sure of perfections by any aspect. In fact any aspect can indicate perfection its just that the perfection requires a hell of a lot more work and sometimes, as in the case of the opposition, the end result probably isn't worth the work you put in. Reception mitigate that and make it easier, reduce the work, or make them more like easier aspects.

I would also like to say that ignoring powerhouse planets like Uranus and PLuto, as Traditionals do for the most part, doesn't make sense to me, just because they" don't reflect light".

OK, what's your experience, and not your belief?

There are a variety of reasons not to use the outer planets, chief amongst them their slowness. They practically do not move. A planet like Pluto can stay at a degree for weeks if not months on end, only to retrograde back to the same degree for another few months.

So they don't move. Horary needs movement.

I was originally a thorough-bred modern astrologer :p
I heard of horary and instantly dismissed it as pure nonsense - I was supremely confident of this as only ignorance can bestow you. When I eventually tried it and witnessed it being tried, it was, ironically, by someone who contacted a well known professional horary astrologer. His name was John Frawley. I was impressed, and surprised, by its accuracy so sought to learn and try it myself. I quickly became a convert.
However in those early days I was very experimental, and preferred to use the outer planets, which I even still used as rulers then (not being fully aware at the time of what rulership actually meant or offered). I just couldn't get it to work reliably. Sometimes it did, sometimes it didn't. That's when I noticed that it wasn't working when I was using Pluto for Scorpio. I tried Mars, tentatively. Well I needed to do several charts before I could be sure, but it seemed that the answer was more obvious and more often correct using Mars, though, to my mind, sometimes Pluto seemed to show relevance too.

Eventually I decided to just accept the system as it was, and ignore the outers. I quickly found it became more successful, then I began to notice the outers showing natural significations - not that they were acting as rulers, but showing natural signification. A person asked about divorce, using just the traditional rules it seemed like it would happen, but I noticed that Uranus was conjunct the Moon as well. Well that was interesting.

Over time I got to the place I am now, which may change in the future: I use traditional rulers but notice conjunctions to the outers as they sometimes add more colour. In particular I notice Neptune sometimes coinciding with pain relief drugs or anasthetics (like in an operation).

I'm nothing if not pragmatic, if I see something work I'll use it and agonise over the theory behind it afterwards.
 

Lakewind

Member
I feel like Santa Clause, I am ho ho ho ing so much over your reply, Paul. That's because you appear to be saying it the Frawley way. That is the way I have always understood it and couldn't get straight in my mind what all you folks were trying to say was backwards. Your statement is so clear, and thanks for taking the time. You are a peach. Kris
 

Paul_

Account Closed
I feel like Santa Clause, I am ho ho ho ing so much over your reply, Paul. That's because you appear to be saying it the Frawley way. That is the way I have always understood it and couldn't get straight in my mind what all you folks were trying to say was backwards. Your statement is so clear, and thanks for taking the time. You are a peach. Kris

Right so the difference is the 'direction' that reception works. So you'll see in my examples I've said that if Planet A is in Taurus, then Venus will receive Planet A. So Venus offers reception to Planet A. So Venus gives protection/aid/help/ etc to Planet A, we might loosely say Venus is behaving like it likes Planet A.

With Frawley we have it the other way around, we'd have it that Planet A loves Venus.

So we have a clear difference here with direction, in other words its reversed. This is what I meant before and what I meant on skyscript. If you look at any other author, we'll see that with regards reception Planet A being in the sign of the Venus means that the Venus will open its doors and play host to Planet A, it will treat Planet A with "the rules of hospitality" which is to provide for and aid Planet A - so because the Venus is giving and offering virtue and aid to Planet A, we could, loosely, say that Venus likes Planet A.

But Frawley, either due to lack of understanding or his own personal experiences, says the other way around, that Planet A likes Venus. If this is what he thinks, fine, I'm not going to debate that it's objectively wrong. But I will say that it contradicts every other author who precedes Frawley who Frawley himself claims to follow.

In the context of discussing Frawley's book, I think then its important to understand and be aware of this difference.
 

dourage

Well-known member
Hi Paul,
John Frawley was my first foray into the world of horary astrology. I remember posting questions here before, using Frawley's technique. I also remember people correcting my understanding of reception, because I was, like you have pointed out in many posts in this thread, reversing the reception (I'd learned from Frawley!). For example, I started out with a "simple" question on a relationship, and started reasoning that ok, Venus is in Aries, Moon is in Taurus, Moon loves Venus because is in Taurus. Simply said. This is, as I understood later, something entirely different from "Venus receives the Moon by domicile", which indeed then means that Venus is behaving like it likes the Moon, so to speak. The "liking", which is, I think, the point of discussion here rather than the actual reception, is then reversed! Frawley then confused me to no end, or actually other people did, until I realized that Frawley's method was more or less diverging from what the traditionals were saying rather than the other way around. For me, horary works best thinking about reception in the traditional sense, not using the outer planets (or only as natural significators, like you said). I hardly use Frawley's book anymore.
 

thegrey

Member
One thing I would point out in advance is that Frawley appears to use a reversed logic for reception. This may mean that all other astrologers who do not go chiefly by Frawley's book will have a different understanding of reception.

While enquiring about this point I came across a possible explanation on internet: "What Frawley is really describing is disposition, which is very important but not the same as reception." (http://www.bendykes.com/reviews/bookreviews.php).
What to make of it?
Might it be that J.F. did call "reception" what in fact is called "disposition" by others, and also failed to address "reception" as it is understood by others?
 

Lakewind

Member
I don't think Frawley, who is after all, a learned traditional astrologer, would mistake disposition. I can't explain any of the reception arguement, and though I thought at first that I understood Paul's discussion, I later realized I didn't. I'm still stuck. I wish I had never read Frawley, because this has ruined horary for me. When I look at Ptolemy's table, for instance, using Moon in Cancer as L1, and Saturn in Scorpio as L2, it still reads to me that L7 does not love L1, but L1 is crazy about Saturn.
 

Aquarius358

Well-known member
I don't think Frawley, who is after all, a learned traditional astrologer, would mistake disposition. I can't explain any of the reception arguement, and though I thought at first that I understood Paul's discussion, I later realized I didn't. I'm still stuck. I wish I had never read Frawley, because this has ruined horary for me. When I look at Ptolemy's table, for instance, using Moon in Cancer as L1, and Saturn in Scorpio as L2, it still reads to me that L7 does not love L1, but L1 is crazy about Saturn.

Hi - Please don't let it ruin horary for you!! :smile:

Taking your example above : Moon in Cancer is in her own Sign and therefore has essential dignity. Saturn in Scorpio has none. So Moon's in a stronger position than Saturn but she's certainly not crazy about him. Quite the contrary.

How do they 'feel' about each other? Is there anything they like, adore or love about each other, given their positions, is the next question.

Not here, because of the respective signs they're in : Scorpio is Moon's Fall. Cancer is Saturn's Detriment.

But if Moon were at say 27 Cancer, there could be one mitigating factor - this is a place not only where she has essential dignity by Sign but, because 27deg Cancer is Saturn's Term as well, Saturn therefore receives Moon by Term - ie a kind of welcome to my place (friendly) but not a very strong welcome. Not like the welcome that's given by Sign or exaltation.

And because Moon is in Saturn's Detriment (Saturn doesn't like being in Cancer or anyone who's in Cancer) - I'd be inclined to interpret that to mean the reception by Term is kinda cancelled out!

Moon is in Fall in Scorpio (the Sign where Saturn is) so Moon is in the Fall of Saturn.

Similarly, Saturn is in Detriment in Cancer (where Moon is.)

So, you have to say this is seriously negative, mutual reception - neither of them 'like' each other - the opposite, really ... there's no nice receiving going on, there's no welcome (except for that bit by Term by Saturn IF Moon were at 27Can.) In fact, you could say Saturn does NOT receive Moon and in some respects, actively doesn't like/want her. And vice versa.

Think about it in stages. Get the two planets' own dignity sorted first, THEN their "feelings" for each other by considering each planet in the other's sign/exaltn/trip/etc.

Does that help in any way? Maybe? ______
 
Last edited:
Top