After further investigation I came across an interesting recent post on the skyscript forum (http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6776&start=60&sid=25dd5f6b0d4921118e16d8486707c3d4) mentionning that J.F. is not alone in his view of reception. There apparently was a medieval astrologer, Al Qabisi, who shares J.F.'s view on reception to some extent. Apparently too, Guido Bonatti, refering to Al Qabisi, disagrees with this view and comments that it is nevertheless fine for an "introduction to the subject" (funny that this is also more or less what you say of J.F.). These assertions seem to be confirmed by the following material. [1] Guidonis Bonati De Astronomia Tractatus X (http://books.google.fr/books?id=Y5OBbJ_OLuYC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0) p. 143: "Alchabicius tamen uidetur uelle dicere, quod Planeta qui est in domo, uel exaltatione, uel in aliqua dignitate alicuius Planetae, si iungatur cum eo, quod ille, cuius est dignitas, dat et committit naturam suam illi: cuius sententiam ego non infringo, nec dico esse abiiciendam, cum ipse fuerit introductorius, unde potius est sustinendus, quam si alius dixisset, et cum ipse plurimum ualuisset in introductorio." [2] Alchibitius cum commento. Translation from arabic by John of Seville. (http://books.google.fr/books?id=Wunk47yU__YC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0) p. 14: "Et si coniungitur planeta domino illius signi in quo fuerit: vel domino exaltationis seu domino ceterarum dignitatum in quibus fuerit: dicitur pulsare idest mittere naturam illius planete domini scilicet eiusdem dignitatis ad eum. Et si fuerit planeta in aliqua dignitatum suarum et fuerit iunctus alii planete qui habeat etiam partem dignitatis in eodem loco mittit ei etiam utramque naturam suam. s. et illius cui iungitur: et haec missio omnis vocat alcobol idest receptio." Sorry for not offering a translation but I'm too unsure about it. It would be nice if some latin expert could ascertain the meaning of these passages.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Discussion on John Frawley's The Horary Textbook
- Thread starter unteruber
- Start date
After further investigation I came across an interesting recent post on the skyscript forum (http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6776&start=60&sid=25dd5f6b0d4921118e16d8486707c3d4) mentionning that J.F. is not alone in his view of reception. There apparently was a medieval astrologer, Al Qabisi, who shares J.F.'s view on reception to some extent. Apparently too, Guido Bonatti, refering to Al Qabisi, disagrees with this view and comments that it is nevertheless fine for an "introduction to the subject" (funny that this is also more or less what you say of J.F.). These assertions seem to be confirmed by the following material. [1] Guidonis Bonati De Astronomia Tractatus X (http://books.google.fr/books?id=Y5OBbJ_OLuYC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0) p. 143: "Alchabicius tamen uidetur uelle dicere, quod Planeta qui est in domo, uel exaltatione, uel in aliqua dignitate alicuius Planetae, si iungatur cum eo, quod ille, cuius est dignitas, dat et committit naturam suam illi: cuius sententiam ego non infringo, nec dico esse abiiciendam, cum ipse fuerit introductorius, unde potius est sustinendus, quam si alius dixisset, et cum ipse plurimum ualuisset in introductorio." [2] Alchibitius cum commento. Translation from arabic by John of Seville. (http://books.google.fr/books?id=Wunk47yU__YC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0) p. 14: "Et si coniungitur planeta domino illius signi in quo fuerit: vel domino exaltationis seu domino ceterarum dignitatum in quibus fuerit: dicitur pulsare idest mittere naturam illius planete domini scilicet eiusdem dignitatis ad eum. Et si fuerit planeta in aliqua dignitatum suarum et fuerit iunctus alii planete qui habeat etiam partem dignitatis in eodem loco mittit ei etiam utramque naturam suam. s. et illius cui iungitur: et haec missio omnis vocat alcobol idest receptio." Sorry for not offering a translation but I'm too unsure about it. It would be nice if some latin expert could ascertain the meaning of these passages.
I read the other discussion! I am pulling out this excerpt to ask a question:
“As for Frawley�s use of reception it has to be said that he is not the only one who uses it in this way. Al Qabisi uses it in the same way and I mean: what it boils down to is whether the dispositor of a planet welcomes/loves that planet or whether a planet welcomes/loves its dispositor. All traditional authors that I have read favour the first approach, while Frawley and Al Qabisi the second � that is the disposited planet welcomes/loves its dispositor.
I must say I was first at a loss when I found out that Al Qabisi used reception in this way (Bonatti says so and disagrees respectfully with Al Qabisi).
Yet Frawley�s use of reception and his system for horary as a whole has worked beautifully for my clients. I have tried to add to the system but it is so self-sufficient (for example the system of timing techniques for horary by Umar is the most profound I have encountered and I have tried to incorporate it and even substitute it for Frawley�s yet there is almost no need for it as horary is always contextual).”
So, I am very new to Horary and am trying to gain clarity on Frawley. I think some in this thread have stated that Frawley may have “mixed up” reception/may have confused dispositors for reception and some have said he (and Al Qabisi apparently too) interpret reception in a way that is the exact opposite from the majority of other Traditionalists.
Which is accurate? Or is it that Frawley ‘a reception is determined by the dispositor since the language in the excerpt above does use the word dispositor when describing reception?
All the way confused but hoping to find illumination from this discussion 🤗 thank you!!!
A New Student,
Jozi
“As for Frawley�s use of reception it has to be said that he is not the only one who uses it in this way. Al Qabisi uses it in the same way and I mean: what it boils down to is whether the dispositor of a planet welcomes/loves that planet or whether a planet welcomes/loves its dispositor. All traditional authors that I have read favour the first approach, while Frawley and Al Qabisi the second � that is the disposited planet welcomes/loves its dispositor.
I must say I was first at a loss when I found out that Al Qabisi used reception in this way (Bonatti says so and disagrees respectfully with Al Qabisi).
Yet Frawley�s use of reception and his system for horary as a whole has worked beautifully for my clients. I have tried to add to the system but it is so self-sufficient (for example the system of timing techniques for horary by Umar is the most profound I have encountered and I have tried to incorporate it and even substitute it for Frawley�s yet there is almost no need for it as horary is always contextual).”
So, I am very new to Horary and am trying to gain clarity on Frawley. I think some in this thread have stated that Frawley may have “mixed up” reception/may have confused dispositors for reception and some have said he (and Al Qabisi apparently too) interpret reception in a way that is the exact opposite from the majority of other Traditionalists.
Which is accurate? Or is it that Frawley ‘a reception is determined by the dispositor since the language in the excerpt above does use the word dispositor when describing reception?
All the way confused but hoping to find illumination from this discussion 🤗 thank you!!!
A New Student,
Jozi