Saturn and intellect

Dirius · Aug 7, 2017

Solar Flare said:
I have a question about the 2nd house. It's not aspected by the ascendant which isn't good but would you consider this house malefic? The main connotation of this house is money which isn't a malefic thing in my opinion, neutral at worst. I've also always seen people ascribing negative labels only to the 6th, 8th and 12th houses, but never the 2nd. Do you know of any authors who explicitly state that this house is malefic and explain why? Just really want to know (especially since I have a planet in that house).

The description is mostly found in more ancient texts. The reinassance astrologers treat the 2nd house as a more or less neutral succedent house with no attachment to any malefic description.

1) Vettius Valens, Anthologies, Book II

14K;15P. The II Place, Called the Gate of Hades. The Place Rising After the Ascendant. In this Place the benefics do no good, the malefics make men sluggish and injured, unable to wade through their lives to the end.
---------------------------------------------/-------------------------------------------------------------

The huge difference between the 2nd house and the 6th/8th/12th house is that it isn't directly connected with injury or harm to the native or querent as the other malefic houses, but related to money and material possesion, thus it isn't usually treated as a malefic house. In fact, despite the assertions that "benefics do no good", a strong benefic placed in the house is usually analysed as providing some degree of wealth at some stage in life (which isn't a bad thing).

Usually the 2nd is treated as place where planets can't really express their qualities. From an analitical perspective, the 2nd seems to be less harmfull than the other bad houses, mostly reducing the planet's influence in the whole chart. But it isn't that bad.

SteveGus · Aug 7, 2017

For the ancients, 'riches' and 'gates of Hades' would be easily connected. Hades/Pluto, god of the underworld, was also god of wealth, because gold, silver, and gems were things dug from beneath the earth. The Latin name 'Pluto' literally means 'the rich guy'.

The Cat astrologer · Aug 9, 2017

Senecar said:
I am not sure if the ancient astrologers have used aspects at all. I was under impression the aspects are quite recent concepts in the traditional astrology itself.

Aspects themselves are not good or bad, but aren't they supposed to be used to look at the relations between two planets in the houses either good or bad, easing supporting and uplifting vs. challenging, difficult and diminishing from the qualities of the planets which become more benefic or malefics under the aspects?

I do not understand what do you mean saying that maybe ancient astrologers didn't used aspects at all (are you talking about babilonians?).

I would say that the relation between planets is given more by how they receive each other than by the aspect; the aspect shows how their respective influences work together.
For instance two persons can esteem each other, but still have some difficulties in working as a cohordinated team (this could be regarded as a square with mutual reception).

Senecar · Aug 9, 2017

The Cat astrologer said:
I do not understand what do you mean saying that maybe ancient astrologers didn't used aspects at all (are you talking about babilonians?).

I need to go back to the book, and confirm that. But I was under impression prior to Ptolemy, the ancient astrologers had not been using aspects that much. I could be wrong.

The Cat astrologer said:
I would say that the relation between planets is given more by how they receive each other than by the aspect; the aspect shows how their respective influences work together.
For instance two persons can esteem each other, but still have some difficulties in working as a cohordinated team (this could be regarded as a square with mutual reception).

I also think more domineering force is planets in the houses and their dignites and rulerships for the long term fortunes, misfortunes, tendencies, capacities, characters and qualities of the natives.

Aspects seem to work more critically on progressed charts for sudden and one off events. Again these are just my speculations without any source supporting. Would appreciate your confirmation on these for right or wrong though

JUPITERASC · Aug 9, 2017

Senecar said:
I need to go back to the book, and confirm that.
But I was under impression prior to Ptolemy, the ancient astrologers

Ptolemy was not a practicing astrologer - even if influential
In contrast, Valens was a practicing astrologer
In fact
today it is common knowledge that
much of Tetrabiblos was collected from earlier sources;
Ptolemy's achievement was ordering material systematically,
showing how the subject could, he thought, be rationalized.
Explanations are provided for astrological effects of planets, based upon effects of heating, cooling, moistening, and drying.
Ptolemy thought that astrology was like medicine, that is conjectural,
because variable factors such as race, country, and upbringing of a person
affects an individual's personality as much
if not more than
the positions of the Sun, Moon, and planets at the precise moment of their birth,
so
Ptolemy saw astrology as something to be used in life
but in no way relied on entirely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy (scroll down for paragraph heading "Astrology")

VALENS was a practicing astrologer who provides us with a myriad techniques
which he illustrated profusely with charts of his clients
all of which are workable
if studied and applied

JUPITERASC · Aug 9, 2017

Senecar said:
the ancient astrologers had not been using aspects that much.
I could be wrong.

THE ANTHOLOGY by Vettius Valens is approximately two thousand years old
AND VALENS chronicles the astrology of predecessors
Valens chronicles two kinds of aspects:
Aspects by SIGN
and
aspects by DEGREE
i.e.
Hellenistic astrologers considered planets in aspect when within an orb of three degrees

Dirius said:
In original traditional astrology
aspects are judged by whole sign relation, not degree position
(though degree position does have importance).

For example, a planet in Libra
is by definition trining each other planet in an air sign (Germini/Aquarius).

JUPITERASC · Aug 9, 2017

Senecar said:
I also think more domineering force is planets in the houses and their dignites and rulerships for the long term fortunes, misfortunes, tendencies, capacities, characters and qualities of the natives.

Aspects seem to work more critically on progressed charts for sudden and one off events.
Again these are just my speculations without any source supporting.
Would appreciate your confirmation on these for right or wrong though

DIRIUS has explained :smile:

Dirius said:
This isn't exactly so. The particular case applies to when authors describe a particular position and its relation to its ruler. For example, to having a kleros aspect its own dispositor even if it is by square/opposition, or the Ascendant's ruler aspecting the ascending house, or having a poorly situated planet aspect the in-sect benefic (Jupiter/Venus).

The idea is that having a bad connection is more desirable than having no connection at all in these particular cases. In the case of the Ascendant ruler, having no aspect with the Ascendant would mean having the planet in one of the 4 malefic houses.

However, for planets that are unrelated this wouldn't be so. You don't really want your, for example, 10th house ruler in square to the out of sect malefic (lets say Saturn). Having no aspect at all would be better in most cases. If saturn has good dignity, then the damage would be lessen, specially if there is a degree of reception among planets, and it can even add some particular traits that aren't bad. However, its not meant to say that this is better than having no aspect to the malefic planet.

The Cat astrologer · Aug 9, 2017

JUPITERASC said:
CARMEN ASTROLOGICUM Dorotheus of Sidon Book One
translated by David Pingree http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dorotheus1.pdf

CARMEN ASTROLOGICUM Dorotheus of Sidon Book Two
translated by David Pingree http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dorotheus2.pdf

CARMEN ASTROLOGICUM Dorotheus of Sidon Book Three
translated by David Pingree http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dorotheus3.pdf

Thank you for the links, I've never read Dorotheus until now, I will read it when I will have more time.
Is it really only of about 50 pages?

The Cat astrologer · Aug 9, 2017

Dirius said:
This isn't exactly so. The particular case applies to when authors describe a particular position and its relation to its ruler. For example, to having a kleros aspect its own dispositor even if it is by square/opposition, or the Ascendant's ruler aspecting the ascending house, or having a poorly situated planet aspect the in-sect benefic (Jupiter/Venus).

The idea is that having a bad connection is more desirable than having no connection at all in these particular cases. In the case of the Ascendant ruler, having no aspect with the Ascendant would mean having the planet in one of the 4 malefic houses.

However, for planets that are unrelated this wouldn't be so. You don't really want your, for example, 10th house ruler in square to the out of sect malefic (lets say Saturn). Having no aspect at all would be better in most cases. If saturn has good dignity, then the damage would be lessen, specially if there is a degree of reception among planets, and it can even add some particular traits that aren't bad. However, its not meant to say that this is better than having no aspect to the malefic planet.

Indeed most of the occasions mentioned fall in the category you gave (plus the Mercury-Moon aspect for evaluating the wit).
But among this and your extreme example of Saturn there are other cases:
Abu Bakr chapter II.1.6 (pag 145 of Ben Dykes translation in Persian nativities II):
"If the Moon appearing in the Midheaven aspected Saturn by a square aspect [so we would often have even an out of sect Saturn with this configuration], with Saturn appearing in the 2nd house, it is a sign that the native wull have beatiful morals."

Naturally I do not concord 100% with this quotation, I understand the logic, but I do not expect this configuration to always give this good effect, there are other considerations to take in account (like essential dignities, reception etc).

I have also to confess that I do not consider the sect of the planets (I am strongly influenced by the traditional astrologer John Frawley in this).

JUPITERASC · Aug 9, 2017

The Cat astrologer said:
I have also to confess that I do not consider the sect of the planets

(I am strongly influenced by the traditional astrologer John Frawley in this).

Benjamin Dykes is a traditional astrologer https://www.bendykes.com/
but just days ago we had the following comment posted
which highlights problems caused by Frawley "methods"

mystic91 said:
Ive learnt most of my Horary
from John Frawleys book,
but i've since found out
that he's been learning people
to do the receptions the wrong way around

So now im trying to get my head around the correct way,

so does this sound correct ?.....

In a recent chart i have venus at 5 degrees cancer, and mars the quesited is at 10degrees Leo, and combust the sun.

So if i'm saying that mars receives venus by triplicity and fall, is this correct ? So mars is quite fond of venus but at present due to circumstances he can't give venus what she wants (fall).

And venus doesn't receive mars at all ? so she's powerless in being able to do anything.

Does this sound about right ?

The Cat astrologer · Aug 9, 2017

Senecar said:
I also think more domineering force is planets in the houses and their dignites and rulerships for the long term fortunes, misfortunes, tendencies, capacities, characters and qualities of the natives.

Aspects seem to work more critically on progressed charts for sudden and one off events. Again these are just my speculations without any source supporting. Would appreciate your confirmation on these for right or wrong though

Well, all is very important, surely the aspects are critical in progessed charts because they become like "triggers".

JUPITERASC WROTE:
but just days ago we had the following comment posted
which highlights problems caused by Frawley "methods"

Originally Posted by mystic91

Ive learnt most of my Horary
from John Frawleys book,
but i've since found out
that he's been learning people
to do the receptions the wrong way around

So now im trying to get my head around the correct way,

so does this sound correct ?.....

In a recent chart i have venus at 5 degrees cancer, and mars the quesited is at 10degrees Leo, and combust the sun.

So if i'm saying that mars receives venus by triplicity and fall, is this correct ? So mars is quite fond of venus but at present due to circumstances he can't give venus what she wants (fall).

And venus doesn't receive mars at all ? so she's powerless in being able to do anything.

Does this sound about right ?

Click to expand...

Yes, Frawley uses a different reception system, more like a variant of the "disposition", I have never found a clear theorical explanation of reception, I found only examples of mutual reception in traditional texts.
What I can say is that his system served me well so far and Henry Cooley, a disciple of Lilly, in his "Key to the whole art of astrology" printed in 1676 at pag. 236 par. I seems using this system:
[referring to the chart in pag. 235 with Venus in Libra and Saturn in Capricorn]
"...But this judgement is in part mitigated by reason Saturn and Venus are in reception by exaltation and triplicity (Saturn is exalted in Libra in the 8th, and Venus hath triplicity in Capricorn in the 12th)."

So this doesn't seems a Frawley's invention; anyway Frawley declare himself a traditional astrologer, but he felt free to reelaborate some concepts that didn't found right, or chose to ignore things theat he found not much influential in its practice; maybe I do agree with him 100% of the times but I am strongly influenced by his approach.
What I appreciate most of him is that he refuses to take as true something only because it was written on a book centuries ago, he is very critical in his examinations of the various methods.

JUPITERASC · Aug 9, 2017

The Cat astrologer said:
Yes, Frawley uses a different reception system,

i.e.
a non-traditional reception "system"

The Cat astrologer said:
more like a variant of the "disposition"
I have never found a clear theorical explanation of reception

So you are unaware of the following then:

The 11th century Arabic astrologer Al-Biruni
described reception as a planet arriving in the dignities of another
and offering it a compliment
- such as 'your servant'
or 'neighbour'.
In giving the visitor 'a reception'
there is an implication of tolerance and attention from the host
as well as an element of influence and control.

Remembering that the ancients referred to the signs as 'houses'
the influence of a dispositor can be likened to that of a property owner
towards a residing visitor in his or her home.
The owner's benevolence, well-being and disposition towards the guest
reflects generally upon the comfort of his stay.
It is always a bad indication to find a planet in a hostile relationship with its own dispositor
as it is to find the dispositor weak or badly afflicted http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig6.html

JUPITERASC · Aug 9, 2017

The Cat astrologer said:
I found only examples of mutual reception in traditional texts.
What I can say is that his system served me well so far and Henry Cooley, a disciple of Lilly, in his "Key to the whole art of astrology" printed in 1676 at pag. 236 par. I seems using this system:
[referring to the chart in pag. 235 with Venus in Libra and Saturn in Capricorn]
"...But this judgement is in part mitigated by reason Saturn and Venus are in reception by exaltation and triplicity (Saturn is exalted in Libra in the 8th, and Venus hath triplicity in Capricorn in the 12th)."

So this doesn't seems a Frawley's invention;
anyway Frawley declare himself a traditional astrologer

but is not a traditional astrologer obviously

The Cat astrologer said:
but he felt free to reelaborate some concepts
that didn't found right
or chose to ignore things
theat he found not much influential in its practice
maybe I do agree with him 100% of the times
but I am strongly influenced by his approach.
What I appreciate most of him is
that he refuses to take as true something
only because it was written on a book centuries ago
he is very critical in his examinations of the various methods.

you appreciate that Frawley then is not traditional
and as a consequence
causes the following kinds of problems
for those who believed him when he claimed to be traditional
for example, one of our own members
i.e.

mystic91 said:
Ive learnt most of my Horary
from John Frawleys book,
but i've since found out
that he's been learning people
to do the receptions the wrong way around

So now im trying to get my head around the correct way,

so does this sound correct ?.....

In a recent chart i have venus at 5 degrees cancer, and mars the quesited is at 10degrees Leo, and combust the sun.

So if i'm saying that mars receives venus by triplicity and fall, is this correct ? So mars is quite fond of venus but at present due to circumstances he can't give venus what she wants (fall).

And venus doesn't receive mars at all ? so she's powerless in being able to do anything.

Does this sound about right ?

traditional astrological texts are available from Benjamin Dykes
at https://www.bendykes.com/

Dirius · Aug 9, 2017

The Cat astrologer said:
Indeed most of the occasions mentioned fall in the category you gave (plus the Mercury-Moon aspect for evaluating the wit).
But among this and your extreme example of Saturn there are other cases:
Abu Bakr chapter II.1.6 (pag 145 of Ben Dykes translation in Persian nativities II):
"If the Moon appearing in the Midheaven aspected Saturn by a square aspect [so we would often have even an out of sect Saturn with this configuration], with Saturn appearing in the 2nd house, it is a sign that the native wull have beatiful morals."

Naturally I do not concord 100% with this quotation, I understand the logic, but I do not expect this configuration to always give this good effect, there are other considerations to take in account (like essential dignities, reception etc).

Yes the problem is that the wording (or perhaps the translation) writes it off as something which could be interpreted as good. This however is mostly an example of personality analysis which isn't relevant to the topic of how the planet is helpful or not, it just shows how someone is.

In any case, the Moon would be in superior aspect to Saturn, thus the one that casts its rays into Saturn. So the aspect is judged on how the Moon affects Saturn rather than the other way around. Its also worth mentioning that the quote refers to a very wide quadrant house system, in which somehow the MC would square the 2nd house, which is imposible in a whole sign house system.

The Cat astrologer said:
I have also to confess that I do not consider the sect of the planets (I am strongly influenced by the traditional astrologer John Frawley in this).

The Cat astrologer said:
Yes, Frawley uses a different reception system, more like a variant of the "disposition", I have never found a clear theorical explanation of reception, I found only examples of mutual reception in traditional texts.
What I can say is that his system served me well so far and Henry Cooley, a disciple of Lilly, in his "Key to the whole art of astrology" printed in 1676 at pag. 236 par. I seems using this system:
[referring to the chart in pag. 235 with Venus in Libra and Saturn in Capricorn]
"...But this judgement is in part mitigated by reason Saturn and Venus are in reception by exaltation and triplicity (Saturn is exalted in Libra in the 8th, and Venus hath triplicity in Capricorn in the 12th)."

So this doesn't seems a Frawley's invention; anyway Frawley declare himself a traditional astrologer, but he felt free to reelaborate some concepts that didn't found right, or chose to ignore things theat he found not much influential in its practice; maybe I do agree with him 100% of the times but I am strongly influenced by his approach.
What I appreciate most of him is that he refuses to take as true something only because it was written on a book centuries ago, he is very critical in his examinations of the various methods.

The problem with Frawley is that he is mainly an horarist, and while he is pretty good at it, it is the simplest form of astrology, and it doesn't represent the full scope of astrological theorems.

For example, the superior aspect concept which I mentioned above, can be largely ignored in horary practice. It doesn't mean the concept is wrong or useless, its just not really needed for an horary judgement (although it can help in some cases). The same goes for using sect as an "accidental dignity" in horary charts, which can largely be ignored in most judgements (but again, can help in some cases).

In the same manner, some concepts we use in mundane or natal astrology are not used in horary for the same reasons.

Frawley is awsome for an introduction to astrology, but he is quite bad when it comes to natal astrology (most of what he writes in his books are for personality analysis), thus why most of what he writes only apply to horary, and nearly all of what he dissmisses are for horary only. He is also quite bias when it comes to his theorems, given that in one book he completly trashed the outer planets by providing logical arguments only to openly use them in the book that followed, which makes no sense.

Again, he is good at horary, I personally use his reception system, and have used many of his methods. But horary is just a small part of the whole astrological practice, and frawley gets it wrong many times in his books, specially on other areas of astrology.

JUPITERASC · Aug 9, 2017

Dirius said:
Yes the problem is that the wording (or perhaps the translation) writes it off as something which could be interpreted as good. This however is mostly an example of personality analysis which isn't relevant to the topic of how the planet is helpful or not, it just shows how someone is.

In any case, the Moon would be in superior aspect to Saturn, thus the one that casts its rays into Saturn. So the aspect is judged on how the Moon affects Saturn rather than the other way around. Its also worth mentioning that the quote refers to a very wide quadrant house system, in which somehow the MC would square the 2nd house, which is imposible in a whole sign house system.

The problem with Frawley is
that he is mainly an horarist,
and while he is pretty good at it,
it is the simplest form of astrology,
and it doesn't represent the full scope
of astrological theorems.

For example, the superior aspect concept which I mentioned above, can be largely ignored in horary practice. It doesn't mean the concept is wrong or useless, its just not really needed for an horary judgement (although it can help in some cases). The same goes for using sect as an "accidental dignity" in horary charts, which can largely be ignored in most judgements (but again, can help in some cases).

In the same manner, some concepts we use in mundane or natal astrology are not used in horary for the same reasons.

Frawley is awsome for an introduction to astrology, but he is quite bad when it comes to natal astrology (most of what he writes in his books are for personality analysis), thus why most of what he writes only apply to horary, and nearly all of what he dissmisses are for horary only. He is also quite bias when it comes to his theorems, given that in one book he completly trashed the outer planets by providing logical arguments only to openly use them in the book that followed, which makes no sense.

Again, he is good at horary, I personally use his reception system.
But horary is just a small part of the whole astrological practice.
and frawley gets it wrong many times in his books
specially on other areas of astrology.
Be careful with him

Useful if you would clarify then whether
you use Frawley for horary solely
and then traditional reception methodology for natal :smile:

Dirius · Aug 9, 2017

JUPITERASC said:
Useful if you would clarify then whether
you use Frawley for horary solely
and then traditional reception methodology for natal

I have used frawley's method for horary, and it seems to work fine. I also believe that, at least in a practical sense, William Lilly used it too.

As for natal, I use it too, but mostly out of habit.

The problem with the whole reception debacle is that the original texts from Masha'allah are too ambiguous, so its actually kind of hard to say what he really means:

Likewise the rest of the seven planets, whichever one of them were joined to its associate from its domicile or exaltation in the known aspects, or in one of the signs, and it projected or committed its disposition, [then] if the one to whom it is committed receives [the disposition], it will perfect the matter, by the command of God.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/masha_allah_receptions.html

I do remain open to using the more classical approach however.

JUPITERASC · Aug 9, 2017

Dirius said:
I have used frawley's method for horary, and it seems to work fine. I also believe that, at least in a practical sense, William Lilly used it too.

As for natal, I use it too, but mostly out of habit.

The problem with the whole reception debacle is that the original texts from Masha'allah are too ambiguous, so its actually kind of hard to say what he really means:

Likewise the rest of the seven planets, whichever one of them were joined to its associate from its domicile or exaltation in the known aspects, or in one of the signs, and it projected or committed its disposition, [then] if the one to whom it is committed receives [the disposition], it will perfect the matter, by the command of God.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/masha_allah_receptions.html

I do remain open to using the more classical approach however.

One of the earliest references
that has relevance to the notion of reception
appears in the Thesaurus of Antiochus of Athens
written in the second half of the second century C.E.
Although it appears to have been applied only to conjunctions
(not aspects)
we find mention of placement in the dignity of another planet
being used to indicate transferal of power
and mutual reception of sign and house
being used to indicate 'reciprocal mastership':

30. CONCERNING PARTICIPATION
There is communion whenever two planets should be present upon one zoidion
or should border upon it
while it should happen to be the house of one
the exaltation of the other.

32. CONCERNING RECIPROCAL MASTERSHIP
Stars are said to be masters of each other
whenever the exaltation of the one and the house of the other
should be the zoidia in which the stars happen to be.

33. CONCERNING THE RULER
A star is said to be the ruler
whenever it should have more relationships of rulership in some one of the zoidia.
I mean relationships of house, exaltation, trigon, boundary, phase or configuration.
The Thesaurus of Antiochus of Athens
Part I, verses 32-33.
Project Hindsight Greek Track
Volume II-B, 1993
translated by Robert Schmidt, edited by Robert Hand
http://www.projecthindsight.com/

Dirius · Aug 9, 2017

JUPITERASC said:
One of the earliest references
that has relevance to the notion of reception
appears in the Thesaurus of Antiochus of Athens
written in the second half of the second century C.E.
Although it appears to have been applied only to conjunctions
(not aspects)
we find mention of placement in the dignity of another planet
being used to indicate transferal of power
and mutual reception of sign and house
being used to indicate 'reciprocal mastership':

30. CONCERNING PARTICIPATION
There is communion whenever two planets should be present upon one zoidion
or should border upon it
while it should happen to be the house of one
the exaltation of the other.

32. CONCERNING RECIPROCAL MASTERSHIP
Stars are said to be masters of each other
whenever the exaltation of the one and the house of the other
should be the zoidia in which the stars happen to be.

33. CONCERNING THE RULER
A star is said to be the ruler
whenever it should have more relationships of rulership in some one of the zoidia.
I mean relationships of house, exaltation, trigon, boundary, phase or configuration.
The Thesaurus of Antiochus of Athens
Part I, verses 32-33.
Project Hindsight Greek Track
Volume II-B, 1993
translated by Robert Schmidt, edited by Robert Hand
http://www.projecthindsight.com/

Thnx for that info JUP, I did not know of that source. :happy:

The Cat astrologer · Aug 9, 2017

JUPITERASC said:
i.e.
a non-traditional reception "system"

So you are unaware of the following then:

The 11th century Arabic astrologer Al-Biruni
described reception as a planet arriving in the dignities of another
and offering it a compliment
- such as 'your servant'
or 'neighbour'.
In giving the visitor 'a reception'
there is an implication of tolerance and attention from the host
as well as an element of influence and control.

Remembering that the ancients referred to the signs as 'houses'
the influence of a dispositor can be likened to that of a property owner
towards a residing visitor in his or her home.
The owner's benevolence, well-being and disposition towards the guest
reflects generally upon the comfort of his stay.
It is always a bad indication to find a planet in a hostile relationship with its own dispositor
as it is to find the dispositor weak or badly afflicted http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig6.html

Yes, I knew that theory but forgot that it was Al-Biruni's, I simply remembered it as the reception system and theory of traditional astrologers in general.
Frawley doesn't consider tradition something "immutable" (and so I), so he wasn't satisfied with that reception system and thought that the other worked better.
He starts from traditional texts and then thinks on their concepts, try, criticize them and in the end use or modify them.
Saying that he is traditional or not is a choice on how much one consider traditional astrology fixed or not; anyway we can find different approaches even among traditional astrologers (hellenistic, arabs etc).

Dirius wrote:
Yes the problem is that the wording (or perhaps the translation) writes it off as something which could be interpreted as good. This however is mostly an example of personality analysis which isn't relevant to the topic of how the planet is helpful or not, it just shows how someone is.

In any case, the Moon would be in superior aspect to Saturn, thus the one that casts its rays into Saturn. So the aspect is judged on how the Moon affects Saturn rather than the other way around. Its also worth mentioning that the quote refers to a very wide quadrant house system, in which somehow the MC would square the 2nd house, which is imposible in a whole sign house system.

I do not get ypur point: if someon has a good trait for a configuration this should be a good element or not?
Yes, you are right, it is more about the Moon than Saturn, but it is always a square among two planets that are not one the dispositor of the other or something similar.
The whole sign system isn't the only house system admitted for traditional astrology.

Dirius wrote:

The problem with Frawley is that he is mainly an horarist, and while he is pretty good at it, it is the simplest form of astrology, and it doesn't represent the full scope of astrological theorems.

For example, the superior aspect concept which I mentioned above, can be largely ignored in horary practice. It doesn't mean the concept is wrong or useless, its just not really needed for an horary judgement (although it can help in some cases). The same goes for using sect as an "accidental dignity" in horary charts, which can largely be ignored in most judgements (but again, can help in some cases).

In the same manner, some concepts we use in mundane or natal astrology are not used in horary for the same reasons.

Frawley is awsome for an introduction to astrology, but he is quite bad when it comes to natal astrology (most of what he writes in his books are for personality analysis), thus why most of what he writes only apply to horary, and nearly all of what he dissmisses are for horary only. He is also quite bias when it comes to his theorems, given that in one book he completly trashed the outer planets by providing logical arguments only to openly use them in the book that followed, which makes no sense.

Again, he is good at horary, I personally use his reception system, and have used many of his methods. But horary is just a small part of the whole astrological practice, and frawley gets it wrong many times in his books, specially on other areas of astrology.

First of all I have to confess that my quotation of Cooley is worthless because with mutual reception both system will give a reception by exaltation and by triplicity, the text should be more clear about who receives who and how. I logged in in the hope of cancelling this shame, but too late (I am just returned from work).

Frawley's methods have evolved much over time, so something of what he wrote in the first books is no more what he thinks now.
He never published a complete book about natal astrology, he is writing one, but find very difficult to fix his method in a book.

Indeed he is extremely influenced by his horary practice, but I think he is rather good in other branches too.

JUPITERASC · Aug 9, 2017

The Cat astrologer said:
Yes, you are right, it is more about the Moon than Saturn
but it is always a square among two planets
that are not one the dispositor of the other
or something similar.

And they will be even more fortunate
if the attendant planets
are in dexter aspect
- Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, IV.3

Saturn and intellect

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member