2
While there is a lot of valuable information in all of John's books, he does not always stick strictly to traditional techniques and sometimes differs from traditional astrologers such as Lilly. This is not to say that you should not get the book but that you should be aware that some of his techniques are not generally used by traditional astrologers in the way John uses them and that he has his own methods.

3
I'd recommend this book for sure as it's 100% straight-forward, no-nonsense. It's clear, to the point and you'll get the hang of it in no time. That's not to say that it's superficial - it can be re-read many times and you'll always find something new. The major selling point of this book is that it's straightforward, clearly and concisely explained. You really can't go wrong if you follow this book. Definitely one of the best investments you could make!

Keren

4
Hi MarG,

The Horary Text Book is just what the title says. It is easy to understand and doubles as a valuable reference tool. I've completed John's Horary Apprenticeship and if this book were available at that time I'm sure I would have done better.

Lilly is the astrologer upon whom John bases his work, but as Sue says he drifts here and there. Lilly isn't the only astrologer John refers to in horary work, but this book is a fine contemporary companion to Christian Astrology. You'll like it.

Tom

5
Hi Sue, Keren and Tom

Thank you all so much for the information, that is what I wanted to know. I have Lilly's CA and you all sold me on adding John Frawley's book, as Tom says, "a contemporary companion" to CA. :D

MarG

6
I would like to clarify that I don't believe John Frawley is necessarily the best 'contemporary companion' to CA and, to be honest, I'm not sure what I would recommend in the contemporary sense. John digresses from the techniques of Lilly quite significantly in some areas and this can be confusing for beginners. The example we have discussed at length in this forum is of John's interpretation of reception. John interprets reception in the opposite way to Lilly and in the opposite way to most horary astrologers. If you want to use John's methods you have to be aware that they are not strictly traditional. That is, you will not find some of his techniques in the works of any ancient authority. It is, of course, entirely up to John to do this but it has caused a lot of confusion for people who learn his techniques believing them to be the traditional method and then read the traditional texts or go to other horary sites and see that things are different. Lee Lehman is another horary writer who has different interpretations of some of the traditional ideas. This is why I think it is best to start with the traditional texts and have a clear idea of what is tradition before moving on to modern texts. At least when you read them you will know what is tradition and what is a different interpretation. You can then make up your mind in an informed way about digressing from tradition. Reading the traditional texts to begin with can be quite difficult but very much worth it. MarG, you mentioned that you already have Lilly. However, many people today come to traditional astrology purely through modern authors without bothering to read the traditional texts. I think this is a real shame and can be somewhat misleading.

7
Sue, will you please explain your remarks about Frawley's ideas of reception being different than tradition? His is the only book I have purchased so far, and he seems to use the old Ptolemaic table that you have posted on your site, is this not so?

I am most anxious to hear in a clear manner what the difference is. I did not buy Lilly because I have zero patience with and poor understanding of, archaic language. Frawley seems to note and explain his divergences from Lilly, but I recall none about receptions. Actually, I'm kind of shocked. Thanks for your prompt response.

8
Sue

Thank you for the information about the difference John Frawley uses for reception, I have read about that on this forum before and that is why I asked about his horary textbook. I use CA extensively in doing horary so am very familiar with Lilly and will keep that in mind regarding receptions and any other differences in Frawley's book.

I, along with Moondance7, would also like to know what the differences are between Frawley and Lilly regarding reception and anything else Frawley does different than traditional.

Granted it takes awhile to get used to Lilly's CA but I, too, recommend it as a first book to read for horary before any others.

Thanks again :lala
MarG

9
Hello,

There are many ?different? versions of reception or better said; the term reception is applied to myriad of configurations?

The one I use is that of Bonatti, the great compiler, who no doubt got it from the Arabs. This is also the stance taken by many ?contemporary? medieval astrologers e.g. Robert Zoller, Bernadette Brady, Benjamin Dykes (of course! being zoller?s students), Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum, etc.

Quoted from Liber Astronomiae, trans. Robert Zoller Spica Publications 1994, Pg 154:-
And it is said that if a planet is joined with the lord of the sign in which it is, or with the lord of the exaltation of the same sign, or with the lord of the bound (read term) or triplicity or face, either bodily (read conjunction) or by aspect (read Ptolemaic aspect), that planet which is the lord of the sign or of some other dignity commits and gives to the planet its own disposition, nature and virtue. However, this is true [only] if it is joined with the lord of the domicile or exaltation, or with the lord of two of the other, lesser dignities, to wit, with [a planet which is] the lord of the bound and triplicity, or with the lord of bound and face, or with the lord of face and triplicity. But if a planet is joined with the lord of the bound, or with the lord of the triplicity, or with the lord of the face, the lord according to one of these lesser dignities alone does not receive a planet because one of these lords [by a single dignity] is not able to make a reception without a small measure of another [dignity].
Bonatti then gives an example of the above.

So, according to Bonatti (and many other medieval and ancient astrologers), to have a reception
1) You must have aspect (Ptolemaic aspect). Aspect is not required in Frawley?s definition of reception.

2) The planet giving reception must be the lord of sign or lord of exaltation or lord of two of the lower dignities (triplicity, term and face) of the planet being received. Frawley?s definition of reception does not require the ?two of lower dignities? ? one is enough.

An example
Saturn in 13 Cancer. Saturn then is in the house of Moon (ruler/lady of cancer), exaltation of Jupiter (exalted ruler of Cancer), triplicity of Venus, Mars, Moon (Dorothean triplicity rulers of Cancer), term/bound of Mercury (Egyptian ruler of 13 Cancer) and Face of Mercury.

If Moon aspects Saturn (Ptolemaic aspect), then (and only then) Moon receives Saturn i.e. Moon gives reception to Saturn. If Jupiter aspects Saturn then (and only then) Jupiter receives Saturn i.e. Jupiter gives reception to Saturn. Venus cannot receive Saturn (even if there is aspect) because Venus is only triplicity ruler. If Mercury aspects Saturn then Mercury receives Saturn because Mercury is term and face ruler (lord of 2 of lower dignities).

In Frawley?s method, ALL of the rulers (sign ruler, exaltation ruler, triplicity ruler, term ruler and face ruler) receive Saturn whether there is aspect or not (between the rulers and Saturn).

Why an aspect is important? This can be understood using an analogy. When Saturn enters the house/sign of Moon (Cancer), Saturn is in the house of moon. If Moon sees (see = aspect in Greek) Saturn, then Moon receives or gives reception to Saturn. No aspect, no contact, hence no reception. If Moon does not see Saturn, she can?t welcome him.

If Saturn is in the house/sign of Moon (Cancer) and Moon does not aspect Saturn but Jupiter (exalted ruler of Cancer) aspects Saturn, there is reception. Jupiter is not the ?owner? of Cancer but at least a Steward whose authority is enough to welcome Saturn when Moon is not around (like the son of the house owner). If both Moon and Jupiter do not aspect Saturn, none can receive him. The other lower dignity rulers can still welcome Saturn provided it has 2 or more dignities (e.g. term and trip ruler, etc.). You go to a person?s house and find that the owner is not there, his son is not around but the maid welcomes you if she has enough authority to do so.

If (like in our example) Venus aspects Saturn, there will be no reception because Venus is only a triplicity ruler OR it will be called imperfect reception. Perfect reception requires aspect with the ruler or exalted ruler or 2 of the lower dignities. In Bonatti?s scheme aspect by a malefic is abated if there is perfect reception (which is mentioned many times in his other book translated by Lilly, Anima Astrologiae ? Guide to Astrologers).

In medieval natal astrology, reception (Bonatti?s definition) is important when looking at aspects. If a planet is aspected (Conj, Opp or square) by a nondignified malefic (Saturn and/or Mars) without perfect reception, the planet really suffers.

In Frawley?s scheme, ALL of the rulers receive Saturn (aspect is not considered) because according to him aspect = action and reception = intention. To be fair, Frawley gives more emphasis to horary astrology, so this is his unique neat way of differentiating between actions and intentions.

The direction of reception is also different between Medieval/Ancient astrologers and Frawley. In our example, if Moon aspects Saturn (Moon being ruler of Cancer, the sign where saturn is posited), Moon receives Saturn. Hence, Moon gives reception to Saturn i.e. Moon donates/gives virtue to Saturn or Moon strengthens Saturn because Moon ?likes? Saturn. So, if Moon is ruler of 2nd house and Saturn ruler of 7th house, native gladly spends money to spouse. If it so happens that Saturn does not receive moon, then it?s difficult for native to receive money from spouse/partners.

Frawley (or at least his book) would say that because Saturn is in Moon?s sign so, Saturn likes moon (observe the different direction!). Again we must remember that reception = intention in Frawley?s use of his own definition of reception.

Frawley also discussed hatred when a planet in another planet?s debility and Bonatti discussed the concept of return of virtue (cancellation of reception) in a number of ways?

10
Thanks for the good explanation of Bonatti's reception methods astrojin. I like his method too. I find his idea of return of virtue very interesting. I'm not sure I agree that there are many different versions of reception though. I think the differences between, say, Bonatti and Lilly, are quite minor. Lilly does occasionally allow for reception without an aspect but not generally.
Sue, will you please explain your remarks about Frawley's ideas of reception being different than tradition? His is the only book I have purchased so far, and he seems to use the old Ptolemaic table that you have posted on your site, is this not so?
This is not in question. John uses the same table as most other horary astrologers. But, this table does not explain reception. As astrojin explains above, he has the use of reception back to front from traditional astrologers. As far as I am concerned, he has misunderstood the technique of reception.

11
Hello,

Hi Sue,

There are a few different versions not many (as myriad would suggest!). I got my English wrong!

As to versions, I meant that some astrologers do not take lower dignities into consideration (only ruler and exalted ruler), and those who consider lower dignites may use all 3 triplicity rulers or only the in sect trip ruler (compounded with those different tables of trip rulers and term rulers...).

If I am not mistaken, the term that ancient/medieval astrologers use for reception ala Frawley (reception with no aspect) is generosity (Book of Wisdom - Ibnu Ezra, have to check first though...) as the medieval astrologers would require aspect for reception to happen

12
I know the request is for other differences, beyond the issue of Frawley?s views on reception, but they are rather critical because they occupy a large proportion of his text and his explanations of other concepts are affected by them. Astrojin gives a good indication of how they differ from traditional sources. To clarify:

Lilly?s use of reception agrees in general with Bonatti and other traditional authors, not Frawley. Unless he is referring to MR, Lilly uses reception with regard to its impact upon an aspect ? it means nothing otherwise.

On p.408 Lilly explains that reception is effective by sign or exaltation or else it needs two of the lesser dignities.

His examples are very clear that a planet that receives another will be obliging towards it. There are numerous examples to demonstrate this but one pertinent comment is ?He that receives would accord whether his adversary will or not? (p.372)

The reason this needs to be stressed is that many astrologers assume Frawley?s explanation of reception is a simpler and clearer way of understanding what Lilly was trying to teach. Some very good astrologers (more knowledgeable in the works of other traditional authors than Lilly?s) accept Frawley?s authority as a student of Lilly and so believe that Lilly uses reception differently in horary to how other astrologers used it outside of horary. But this isn?t the case at all - Lilly stands with Bonatti and the other medieval/ancient astrologers; it is misleading to assume that JF?s differing approach is representative of traditional sources.

This is one area where new students of Lilly?s work need to be careful. I have had quite a few students who have read John?s book as a way of preparing for a study of Lilly, not realising that John does some things very differently, or even in a way that is the complete opposite of what Lilly was doing himself. As a result they find some passages in Lilly almost incomprehensible ? and in general CA is much harder for them to understand, not easier. People do need to be aware of this.

It?s a while since I read Frawley?s book but when I did I felt that there were quite a few places where he differs substantially from Lilly in his definitions and approach. One is his definition of Void of Course ? very different to Lilly?s understanding. Another is his approach to aspects and orbs. John doesn?t believe that orbs are relevant but they are very relevant in Lilly?s work (even though Lilly wasn?t going to fall out about half a degree or so). He also dismisses the potential of dissociate aspects which are, again, often critical in Lilly?s work. Elsewhere there are explanations and dismissals that seem to be either based upon a misunderstanding of traditional philosophy or unfairly representative of it in order to justify his way of working. For example, where he dismisses any potential for squares becoming similar in their effects to trines in signs of long ascension, he says
?This is nonsense: if signs were flexible like this, the Moon would not oppose the Sun at full Moon, the nodes would not oppose each other, and so forth.?
But of course signs of long ascension are counterbalanced by signs of short ascension, so this phenomenon would never cause planets in opposition to be anything but opposition! John states that Lilly proposed this because some squares have happier outcomes than others, and he couldn?t account for that because he (Lilly) didn?t have the full understanding of dignity and reception that he (Frawley) has.

To me this is one of the examples where Frawley promotes a lack of respect and a lack of true understanding of traditional principles. Very few astrologers have troubled to research that short/long ascension issue properly and if people dismiss it for all the wrong reasons, few ever will. (We have a recent forum post exploring this issue: William Lilly's Aspects-Long and Short Signs )

It may be that this concept has little practical value, or there may be something vital within it ? but we know that it wasn?t invented by Lilly, and the suggestion that Lilly rested upon concepts like this because he didn?t understand the value of dignity or reception is worrying. It is one of several places where readers are recommended to forget all about what Lilly says (rather than understand what Lilly says), and readers might infer from this that it?s not necessary to understand the philosophy behind traditional techniques.

These are my concerns in what, in many other respects, is a very good book. There are some places where John greatly illuminates, but the new student doesn?t know where he is enlightening traditional philosophy and where he is misrepresenting it or developing his own technique under the name of a traditional technique. So in a way, it is much better to get the traditional understanding first.

However I do recommend this book to my students ? although I consider Lilly?s work ?the? essential horary text, I recommend that they read as widely as possible from the range of modern commentaries, as well as other traditional sources. I would also recommend Derek Appleby?s recently republished book on horary astrology, but it would never come to mind as the best book to invest in as a primer to Lilly. If you only want to make one investment, the book I?d give my vote to as the best contemporary companion to astrology would be Horary Astrology: The History and Practice of Astro-Divination by Anthony Louis (Llewellyn 1991). But the original is much better than the ?simplified? revised edition which goes under the name of Horary Astrology Plain and Simple. For obvious reasons simplified books appeal to the widest market, but there are inevitably compromises to be made in order to offer a simple and fast-paced understanding of horary. Unfortunately there is no quick and simple way to understand Lilly?s work because it incorporates so much important traditional philosophy ? so it?s a longer journey but its significance is much wider.