46
Hi Deb and Everyone,

I only have a minute or so, but I do want to make these quick points and then get back to all this later.

1) Yes, I agree John is pretty much going his own way here. I don't mean to say that he made this up out of thin air, but rather that his use of reception is not in strict accord with the bulk and perhaps with no traditional authority. I understand that. That leaves only the understanding of what he is doing and answering the all important question: "Does it work?"

2) In my response to Annie, I mentioned "the article" in "The Astrologer's Apprentice" and The Real Astrology Applied. However I assumed that is what others were referring to, and it appears as though I'm wrong. I was referring to the article "Are You Receiving Me?" that appeared in AA No 9 and again in The Real Astrology Applied page 3. The chart Deb posted is from Lilly's Prophetical Merlin and John's article in AA No 21. This chart is also discussed in Geoffrey Cornelius' The Moment of Astrology. I shall get on the same page as everyone else and refer to that article and chart from this point on. I find it helpful to be discussing the same thing as everyone else in the conversation.

Sadly, I have to go earn my daily bread right now. I'll get back to this much more pleasant task later today or tonight (my time), Until then, I recommend the article "Are You Receving Me?" to interested readers.

Tom

47
Hi Tom,

I should probably wait until you respond in full before jumping in but I would just like to make one comment.
Yes, I agree John is pretty much going his own way here. I don't mean to say that he made this up out of thin air, but rather that his use of reception is not in strict accord with the bulk and perhaps with no traditional authority.
If this is the case, he can't keep calling it traditional astrology. We have all seen John time and time again berate modern astrologers for making up their own rules. He appears to be guilty of this himself. If his idea of reception is not in accord with any traditional authority then it isn't traditional astrology and he is making up his own rules. They may work for him but from what I have seen they do not work in accordance with traditional rules.

48
Tom ? don?t you think it is more likely that John misunderstood the principle that Lilly was using, and then built up an approach with a misunderstanding at the bottom of it? That would make sense to me. I can remember when I studied horary on the QHP, no one really understood the principle very well at that time, even the teachers were confused about issues of who was receiving who and what it all really meant. That was compounded by the belief that reception always meant mutual reception, and mutual reception always meant in the same level of dignity ? so there was a tremendous amount of confusion about this and for a while I also assumed it was applied in the way John describes.

The point is, because of the other translations that have allowed us to clarify a lot of traditional issues, we can start to re-evaluate some of our old assumptions. Now we can see the principle a lot more clearly, and how it makes sense. So all those errors we attributed to Lilly don?t really exist ? they were our errors. Lilly might not have explained it as clearly as he could, but he would also have assumed that his reader had a fundamental understanding to begin with.

Once we identify a misunderstanding we have a choice. We can look again, and hopefully get a much more reliable understanding of what is being taught and the philosophy it is built upon so that we can use it even more effectively, (along with all the embarrassment we have to face confessing to students and colleagues that we actually made a mistake ? and believe me I have had to confess this to my students many times as my understanding of Lilly has developed: it?s never nice). Or we can think ? ?I have developed this misunderstanding too far now, developed a whole new approach based upon using it; so I have to stick to it and make a case for it?.

From the first point you made, it seems to me that you are verring towards the latter, but isn?t that the sort of thing you normally hate? You have often criticised Noel Tyl for reinventing the meaning of peregrine instead of understanding and maintaining its traditional application. Why is this any different?

Just to be clear, John?s teaching cannot enhance or develop traditional teachings because they strongly contradict the results of it. They can only be justified if we assume every traditional author had this wrong. John has said this explicitly (AA #20). When confronted with evidence that proves Lilly?s approach was entirely different, he says we must disregard what Lilly has taught, assume he was mistaken and generally unreliable, and use his approach instead. So there?s no suggestion of an enhancement for tradition; it?s a clear case of ?forget tradition ? use this instead?.

It?s a very hard thing to let go of assumptions. Every modern astrologer who begins to learn traditional techniques fights all those principles that reject what they easily and readily absorbed from modern authors. I certainly did ? I argued almost to the death until I finally saw sense and realised that none of it actually contributed to me reading a chart clearly. But you have to be prepared to keep your mind open to the fact that other, more powerful techniques exist, and to use them effectively you must explore them in their own terms and let go of some of your assumed beliefs that haven?t been critically tested.

I think that if you leave this a while, and then read through this all again; and then check out what John wrote in the Astrologer?s Apprentice no 20 ? along with all the arguments that he made for Lilly being an incompetent astrologer, (which he needed to declare in order to get the traditional understanding of this out of our heads and replace it with his own); and then read Lilly?s judgement again as he intended it to be understood, you will be able to answer the all important question ?does it work??

Another point you might note is that John?s approach doesn?t show the woman being attracted to the soldier: the closest you could get to that is to say that Mercury is in the triplicity of Mars ? John describes this as ?warm and comfortable, with no real passion? . So why was she crying? That may be the way soldier felt about her (providing she didn?t come on too strong), but not the other way around. By comparison Lilly?s analysis of the chart is effortless and fits in with the teachings of our other primary sources.

49
If this is the case, he can't keep calling it traditional astrology. We have all seen John time and time again berate modern astrologers
I don't want to be put into the position of speaking for John Frawley. He is more than qualified to do that for himself and far better qualified than me. My statement was not to be taken as definitive of anything he thinks, says, or believes. And to imply such is a bit unfair. Maybe I have it wrong.

Deb writes:

Tom ? don?t you think it is more likely that John misunderstood the principle that Lilly was using, and then built up an approach with a misunderstanding at the bottom of it?
Anything is possible, but see above. Besides no one on this list folllows Lilly blindly either. We also have to take into consideration years of experience with this method, and years of teaching students to use this method. Was he always wrong?

We're getting ahead of ourselves a bit.

Tom

50
There have been so many objections, questions, and challenges made about this method of use of reception that I?ve become overwhelmed. There have probably been a few thousand words directed at me (not personally of course) and I can?t possibly respond to all of them lest we degenerate into total chaos. So let?s use the chart that Deb set up and I?ll explain it and my position on the matter using this technique and we can work with that, rather than use a scattergun approach to the problem.

The question concerns a young woman and her concerns over a relationship with an older man. Lilly treats this in his work The Prophetical Merlin and Lilly himself doesn?t follow all the rules he sets down in CA page 302. Those rules include assigning, unless otherwise occupied, Venus to the woman, and the Sun to the man in a relationship horary. Lilly also mentions assigning the planet to which the Moon separates to the querent and the planet to which the Moon applies to the quesited. He does not seem to do this much, if at all, in practice. Lilly?s judgment is only a few hundred words, and I?ve wondered if some of this had to be edited out, or if it was filler.

Lilly uses the following heading: A Gentlewoman desired to know if she should have an aged man; yea or no.?

In AA No 20 John tells us: ?Our first point is a linguistic one: when she desires to know is she should have this man, she is not asking if it is a good idea, but if she will.? I don?t know how he came to this conclusion, and I?m uncomfortable with it. She can marry the guy if she wants to, and I don?t get the impression from Lilly or from John that she is asking what the fates have in store. I?ve pretty much understood the question to mean what John has rejected: ?Is this a good idea?? The information she receives seems to be given with that in mind. But this is a minor point for our purposes.

The woman gets the ASC and its ruler, Mercury, and of course, the Moon. She also gets Venus. Mercury is she as personality. Venus is she as woman, and the things women do that men like, being a good companion, being nurturing, and being a good sex partner. This may not sit well with some contemporary women, but that, too is another issue. The Moon shows her emotional state. The man is Jupiter, him as personality, and the Sun him as macho man. In his explanation of this chart, Lilly even says: The Querent hath only Mercury for her significator.? He does use the Moon however, but this example shows us how we have to read Lilly or anyone with a good deal of care.

The lady as personality ?loves? or is most concerned with the ruler of the sign the ASC ruler is in: Mercury is in Cancer; she is concerned with one of her own significators. She is concerned with herself. In my mind this is to be expected. In 1644 a woman could not simply go out and get a job, if she was short on funds. Financial security is always important, but in such a situation as she found herself in, it was critical. The chart, seen in this light, reflects this.

John writes: ?He (Lilly) judges that Mercury being in the exaltation of Jupiter shows that the man (Jupiter) wants the match.?

What Lilly says is: ?the old man did much importune it, because Jupiter receives Mercury in his exaltation, and casteth a friendly trine to the degree ascending; this was so.?

John adds to his (John?s) quote above: ?This is not so.?

This appears to be the main point of confusion. Lilly says Jupiter receives Mercury in his exaltation. John looks at Mercury in Cancer as Mercury receiving Jupiter. Aftre all Mercury is in Jupiter?s house, and Jupiter isn?t home. Lilly looked at it as Jupiter receiving Mercury. If we go back to John?s assertion that a planet loves the planets whose signs it is in, we see that regardless of who receives whom or whichever is the correct way of stating the reception, and we stick with the idea that Mercury loves the Moon and Jupiter, we can correctly delineate the chart. How do we know we are correct? Read on.

Mercury surely has feeling for Jupiter, she stayed with him (not the way we mean that today), she is seriously considering his proposal (why else spend the money on an astrologer?) and as John points out, the marriage is not being forced on her. .But she is also interested in her own security as subsequent events reveal.

Does he like her? Well if we use only Mercury for her, we would say he doesn?t. There is no connection by applying aspect or reception between Jupiter and Mercury. But if we use John?s method and Lilly?s significators (CA p 302) we get answers. Jupiter is in Taurus a Venus sign. He ?loves? her as woman as nurturer, as caretaker. He is aged after all (the truly disgusting thing is this ?aged? gentleman was probably younger than than I am now). He wants someone to take care of him (I will not respond to the modern notion that all men want that). He loves her as emotional being or if you wish as ?Mom.? Jupiter is in the exaltation of the Moon. He is old and not getting younger and he knows he will need care in the not too distant future. Look at the Sun: it is in Cancer and he, as macho man does not want Venus so much, as a younger man might, as he wants care.

What we have here are two self-centered individuals. She wants financial security; he wants physical security. What else?

Lilly looks at the Moon (her as emotional being) and sees it is applying to Mars in Aries, the sign of Venus detriment. Who does Mars love? Mars is in Aries, loves himself. He doesn?t hate her, but he might use her. Mars is in the exaltation of the Sun, the symbol of the macho man. Lilly calls Mars a ?soldier,? and she confessed an interest in such a man, but the man wants what it in it for himself and to her detriment.

All of this is shown by the method of looking to see which planet ?loves? whom and ?hates? whom, and we can do this without reference to who receives whom.

Cornelius makes much of the fact that Lilly does not give a direct answer to the woman, but rather he encourages her to ask for a legal commitment with proof of ability that he can do so for her security. He cannot do this (Saturn in fall in the 2nd house of the quesited). So the match doesn?t take place. We?re beyond the scope of this thread now.

In summary, it doesn?t matter to me that John takes a different approach to the who receives whom question since, using this method, we can get results. I admit it would be less confusing, if we all used the same technical expressions the same way, and perhaps someday that will happen, but it isn?t my place to notify John that he?s ?doing it wrong.? And more importantly it doesn?t seem to matter in the end.

Sue asks if John?s method is then truly ?traditional.? If by traditional we mean ?following an accepted authority without wandering off the track a bit,? then the answer is ?no; it is not a traditional technique.? But if we mean using traditional techniques such as reception that are not employed by moderns and have not been in quite some time, then I?d say yes, the use of reception in this way is consistent with traditional methods. He?s just not using a particular method with a stamp of approval from an accepted authority. I see this as a giant step above the ?Hey look at this, well it works for me? school of the moderns because this technique has roots in traditional astrology and yields a definitive answer that we can objectively confirm or reject as correct. We can then see if ?it works? or not. Try that with Chiron and ?You have great potential to be a healer.?

And Deb, you have no idea how happy you made me with your reference to the difficulty you all had studying reception way back when you first started with traditional. I became as least as confused as you all did, and it made my heart leap to think that people I admire and respect struggled much as I did, and still do. I just figured I was lacking, and now I know I?m not lacking quite as much as I thought I was.

Now you may bombard me. Best to all

Tom

51
There have been so many objections, questions, and challenges made about this method of use of reception that I?ve become overwhelmed. There have probably been a few thousand words directed at me (not personally of course) and I can?t possibly respond to all of them lest we degenerate into total chaos.
I certainly hope no one takes it personally. After all, we are debating a technique of astrology, not the meaning of life. And it is only one technique. None of what I have said suggests that John is an incompetent astrologer or that I believe that he is wrong about everything else he teaches. This is purely about reception. However, I think we are in danger of going around in circles because the two sides of the argument are diametrically opposed, each being convinced of the correctness of their argument.
John writes: ?He (Lilly) judges that Mercury being in the exaltation of Jupiter shows that the man (Jupiter) wants the match.?

What Lilly says is: ?the old man did much importune it, because Jupiter receives Mercury in his exaltation, and casteth a friendly trine to the degree ascending; this was so.?

John adds to his (John?s) quote above: ?This is not so.?
Yes it is so. It is John who is wrong. This is exactly how all of the traditional texts ascribe to the use of reception.
This appears to be the main point of confusion. Lilly says Jupiter receives Mercury in his exaltation. John looks at Mercury in Cancer as Mercury receiving Jupiter. Aftre all Mercury is in Jupiter?s house and Jupiter isn?t home. Lilly looked at it as Jupiter receiving Mercury. If we go back to John?s assertion that a planet loves the planets whose signs it is in, we see that regardless of who receives whom or whichever is the correct way of stating the reception, and we stick with the idea that Mercury loves the Moon and Jupiter, we can correctly delineate the chart. How do we know we are correct? Read on.
We are only correct if we use John?s method. I?ve never been comfortable with John?s usage of a planet loves the planet whose sign it is in. It seems far too simplistic and not always true. In Liber Astronomiae , Bonatti uses a similar phrase in chapter XCIX. It is entitled ?How One Planet Loves Another and How It Is Loved by Another, and How They Have Hatred for Each Other.? I thought of this the other day when reading this thread. But to read it again, Bonatti means something different. He is talking about a planet?s natural affinity for certain planets, not whether a planet is in the sign of another planet. Bonatti also gives an example of reception where a planet receives another planet that it would normally not be too fond of (such as planets who are opposed), Jupiter and Mercury for example, but that the receiving planet treats the received planet well because of reception.

Bonatti says:
?And such a reception as this and showing of good will is called the opening of the gates because it opens for a planet the gates and the entrances, and renders him secure; for one cannot say more clearly to one, ?Enter my home,? than to open the gates for him.?
In our example, Jupiter opens the gates for Mercury, not the other way around.
In summary, it doesn?t matter to me that John takes a different approach to the who receives whom question since, using this method, we can get results. I admit it would be less confusing, if we all used the same technical expressions the same way, and perhaps someday that will happen, but it isn?t my place to notify John that he?s ?doing it wrong.? And more importantly it doesn?t seem to matter in the end.
Of course it matters. John and Lilly come up with different explanations on who loves whom. Lilly explains that the gentleman receives the woman and is therefore showing interest in her. John says that she receives him and therefore she is showing interest in him. The answer in the end might be the same (the match doesn?t happen) but they are entirely different explanations. It has got nothing to do with technical expression. Using John?s method and using Lilly?s method gives two different explanations. John blames Lilly for this. By blaming Lilly, he also has to blame every other traditional astrologer who ever wrote about reception. Are we really expected to believe that everyone else has been wrong and only John has it right?
Sue asks if John?s method is then truly ?traditional.? If by traditional we mean ?following an accepted authority without wandering off the track a bit,? then the answer is ?no; it is not a traditional technique.? But if we mean using traditional techniques such as reception that are not employed by moderns and have not been in quite some time, then I?d say yes, the use of reception in this way is consistent with traditional methods. He?s just not using a particular method with a stamp of approval from an accepted authority.
I really can?t see how John?s use of reception can be considered as being consistent with traditional techniques. No traditional technique uses reception this way. I think it is more than ?wandering off track a bit.? And, as I said in an earlier post, John has turned exaltation from one of the most positive forms of reception and a position of strength to one of the most negative forms of reception showing a position of weakness.
I see this as a giant step above the ?Hey look at this, well it works for me? school of the moderns because this technique has roots in traditional astrology and yields a definitive answer that we can objectively confirm or reject as correct.
Actually, I don?t see it as much different. He has changed the meaning of reception. I can?t see how John?s use of reception has its roots in traditional astrology when it is the opposite of every traditional example I have read. You said in an earlier post, ?That leaves only the understanding of what he is doing and answering the all important question: "Does it work?"? I think the equally important issue is how it works. Getting from A to B is important. But equally important is the route taken to get there. Yes, John?s delineation yields a definite answer but by a very circuitous route that has to change the rules to make it fit. It?s like driving from A to B but driving on the wrong side of the road to get there. You might still get to the same destination but you?ve broken every rule to get there and probably caused a few problems along the way.

52
Now you may bombard me.

:lol:

All right. Go get a cup of tea.

I?ll hopefully put everything I have left to say on this here - I am fully aware that for the time I am spending on this, said John Frawley will have written half of his next book. However, if you knew how much extra time I have had to spend unravelling the minds of Christian Astrology students who have bombarded me with additional questions on reception since the publication of his last one, you will understand why I believe it is so important to get some clarity into what John is doing, and how this reflects on our general understanding of Lilly?s technique.

First a couple of minor points:

You describe the woman involved as a ?young woman?, but we are only told that she is a gentlewoman; and elsewhere she is described as a maid (meaning unmarried). I?m not sure why I should need to be so particular about this point; perhaps arguing in this thread has now become habitual.

Secondly, I don?t advocate the use of Venus or the Sun as secondary significators in relationship matters, because I think they are only applicable under certain circumstances. For example, the Sun is the natural significator of honourable men, husbands or husband material; so I don?t think it would be appropriate to take it as a secondary significator in, say, the earlier example we looked at where the married woman is asking about the dubious character who was supposedly being blackmailed. I don?t believe that it necessarily helps to include these planets as significator (my own opinion), or that Lilly used them as a constant. Having said that, I accept it?s an arguable point so I don?t have any disagreement with what you?ve actually written.

The only problem I do have, is that you seem to suggest that there is no real contradiction against traditional principles in how John Frawley is presenting this. You write:

But if we mean using traditional techniques such as reception that are not employed by moderns and have not been in quite some time, then I?d say yes, the use of reception in this way is consistent with traditional methods.

This is where the controversy really lies. Because if it doesn?t contradict traditional principles, and if it only gave an alternative method (that wouldn?t involve suggesting that another approach is false), I nor anyone else I am sure, would have a problem with it.

Earlier you wrote:

We also have to take into consideration years of experience with this method, and years of teaching students to use this method. Was he always wrong?

There are always different approaches, of course. The same question can be raised towards any modern author, or anyone who advocates a new approach. But ? and this is the important point - John speaks as a voice of authority on traditional teachings and in particular on Lilly?s technique. So for that reason it is only right that the points he raises concerning Lilly?s work are given a fair review.

In his article where he talks about this chart: ?Towards Reading Lilly? (A. Apprentice, issue 20) he spares no ones blushes in his attack on Lilly. He knows that his approach doesn?t merge with what Lilly has written. He might have paused and investigated the matter at that point, cross-referencing it with other examples of how Lilly used the same kind of reception elsewhere. Or he might even have said, ?this seems to show a different approach to that which I would advocate ? let me show you the way I prefer ?.?; but instead he decides to undermine the value of what Lilly has actually written by suggesting it is full of mistakes.

So the first part of that article is all about presenting Lilly as an incompetent astrologer and careless author whose work is littered with errors, typos and inaccuracies - plus of course, the implication that Lilly changes his rules for each chart, and that he picks the brains of his querent to get his facts rather than reading the symbolism of the chart. He doesn?t actually include Lilly?s judgement so that readers can make their minds up on this ? a shame because as far as I am concerned Lilly has judged this chart perfectly and the symbolism is all very clear. [A reminder: Lilly?s chart and judgement is here http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aged.html

John talks about the time that we have to waste trying to understand Lilly?s work, and likens his writing to a ?conversation with the guy next door who happens to do a bit of astrology?. He might be being glib there, but he is very clear when he goes on to promote the ?it was all rushed at the printers? theme. This leaves a false impression of Lilly's work. Yes there are errors and contradictions in it, but I worked through that text word for word, noting the ones I found, and overall the text is a lot more reliable than most people are prepared to acknowledge. This idea that Lilly's work is all errors comes from people reading it with their eyes shut to what he is actually trying to say.

John then invents imagined arguments that float around Lilly?s head (by now Lilly is understood to be rather inept and to have composed his judgements with a lack of attention). So apparently Lilly is thinking:

?I saw a chart once with X in it; I vaguely remember some other chart on this theme with Y in it: My first teacher told me about a chart with Z in it?

Even though these are John?s imagined arguments and don?t come close to anything Lilly has ever written, ever intimated, or ever given us reason to believe, (and in fact despite being patently obvious that Lilly built his knowledge on a great deal of study and experience), John informs us that Lilly arguing with himself like this is:

?evidence he has lost the plot?. (!)

With regards to the chart under discussion, he describes Lilly?s treatment of it is as ?to say the least, cursory?. (I?m not sure what more John expected Lilly to get out of it). And then he makes the strange remark :

?Note that whatever he says, Lilly is in fact using the Moon as co-significator of the querent ? an indication that we must be cautious in following what he says.?

I can only imagine John has said this because Lilly mentioned the Moon in the judgement but failed to write out the axiomatic principle:
In every question we do give the Moon as a Cosignificator with the querent or lord of the Ascendant (p.124)

Whoever interrogates, be his Condition what it will be, King, Noble, Priest or Layman, the Ascendant, the Lord thereof and the Moon are his Significators ? p.167
We can?t expect Lilly to repeat every elementary principle in every chart he publishes, or he would never get more than one judgement in a book. But the implications are all building up to the theme that Lilly?s writings are not to be trusted. So John?s next comment (the important one) is this:

?He judges that Mercury being in the exaltation of Jupiter shows that the man (Jupiter) wants the match. This is not so. If Mercury is in the exaltation of Jupiter, the querent (Mercury) should be exalting the quesited, not the other way around? Only when we consider all the significators and assess the receptions correctly, ignoring Lilly?s misleading comments, do we get the full story?. ?

And he states that just because Lilly happened to get the judgement right ?does not make it a sound model for practice?.

But of course we wouldn?t have to just ignore Lilly?s ?misleading comments? in this chart, but in others too where he has applied the similar principle. And we would also have to ignore all the other ?misleading comments? that fill the tradition and appear in other works. There is simply no way that John can present the matter in this simplistic way without forcing us to believe that the traditional approach is wrong and must be rejected and replaced by his.

John eventually leaves Lilly alone and writes his own judgement - four pages of what I consider to be very complicated logic, requiring us to look at Venus being crazy about the Sun and hating Saturn, (the Sun and Saturn are not worthy of mention by Lilly - it's all so perfectly obvious using the main significators); suggesting the soldier is gay because his significator is in the exaltation and triplicity of the Sun; and all sorts of new reasoning that requires us to split each person up into various functions: of their personality, emotional self, womanliness or need for manliness rather than moneyliness, etc, etc, moving us back into the realm of modern psychological astrology where we perceive the planets as functions of personality instead of symbolic significators, loaded with powerful information in their own right. Finally he summarises the points to give us something similar to how you have explained this: all of which is supposed to prove that the clear judgement Lilly made in the first place can be accepted as reliable, even though Lilly and the techniques he used to establish it aren?t.

The twists and leaps that have to be taken to arrive at the same conclusion are really significant. And even then we only get an unconvincing half of the story. Again, it doesn't explain the central point of the woman's attraction to the soldier, who barely gets a look-in by John's account except to suggest he likes himself and is probably gay because a) he's in his own sign (fair enough) and b) he's exalting the Sun. Unfortunately it's a reliable rule that every time Mars is in Aries it is a) in his own sign and b) exalting the Sun, so is Mars always gay man when it is in Aries?


Beyond that, since all this is supposed to be showing who we are drawn to, or love, or are 'into', where is the evidence to support the woman being attracted to the soldier? There is none, so that point is conveniently ignored. And whatever happened to Callanan's law of mudied explanations: If the explanation of a an example is longer than the example itself, the example is flawed?

Well people will have to make their own mind up I guess. I certainly don?t want to attack John, who elsewhere I think comes up with remarkable insight and pearls of thought-provoking wisdom (although there are other issues I have about his presumptions on Lilly's work). But I do want to put right this very unfair account on the technique of Lilly (and by implication, the older authorities). Of course Lilly is not the definitive authority that closes all arguments, nor is he perfectly reliable, nor am I, nor is John ? hey, I bet even you make mistakes sometimes :) But we won?t understand the value of what Lilly is trying to teach from his experience and knowledge if we begin with an assumption on his meaning, and then start questioning his mental capacity and competency because an actual analysis of his work shows he didn?t say what we thought.

I?m fine with John having his own approach. And yes, I?m sure he can use it and teach it very effectively as part of the whole package he uses. The art of drawing a good judgement demands a lot more than just knowing about rules or what other people have written. But you and I both know how influential John?s work is, and how people assume that his recommended technique will guide them into an informed and respectful understanding of what Lilly was really trying to do.

If John wants to develop his theory on his own terms that?s entirely appropriate. But I think he should demonstrate it according to his own reasoning - not try to project it backwards into Lilly?s already over-crowded-with-imagined-ramblings head.

Personal approaches tend to work as an entirety, of course - not when bits of them are taken out of content or picked out and put into another approach that doesn?t support them. But remember we can say the same for every newly ?invented? principle; and this is what justifies modern astrologers introducing 1001 new ways at looking at things that breaks down the understanding of the solid traditional philosophy astrology was built upon.

And even that is OK by me. In natal astrology, I do think creative techniques have great use. But Horary is probably the last salvage of a place in astrology where we can expect to have some semblance of uniformity of technique and a real value for the tried and tested traditional principles. And it is horary that has moved everyone to keep a regard for the value of traditional techniques and to make the effort to understand them and respect them. I think it will be a great shame to see that go because in somebody?s attempts to ?tidy things up? an old but especially valuable principle was chucked in the bin.

So that?s me done. My apologies in advance (in case Kirk is reading) for so many words. I did a bit of colouring to add some interest.

Next week, my entire life story which will be shorter.

Hope you enjoyed your tea.

Deb

edited to fix the link
Last edited by Deb on Fri Sep 23, 2005 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

53
My apologies in advance (in case Kirk is reading) for so many words.
No problem - I had a pot of coffee at my side. It was good practice for my next attempt at Proust.

54
Sue, with regard to ?opening of the gates? ? I?ve been interested in this since seeing it referred to in a 14th century old English text by an anonymous author. He used it in weather prediction to describe storms and very bad weather. Ramesey also uses it the same way 4.III.X.

The both described it as when there is an aspect between the planets that rule opposing signs (Mars-Venus, Sun-Saturn, Sun-Moon, Mercury-Jupiter). Ramesey says it also occurs when a planet immediately translates between such a pair.

I always thought it was called ?opening the gates? because the bad weather was like ?opening the floodgates of heaven?! And I assumed the bad weather was because we had two opposing forces coming or being brought together. It is interesting to see the quote from Bonatus which gives a whole new slant to it. For some reason there is something in this phrase that fascinates me.

55
I always thought it was called ?opening the gates? because the bad weather was like ?opening the floodgates of heaven?! And I assumed the bad weather was because we had two opposing forces coming or being brought together.
That's interesting. But what immediately came to mind for me was not the floodgates of heaven but rather the gates of hell. Not sure what that says about me. :???: Of course, who could think of the gates of hell without thinking of Dante's very familiar phrase from Canto III of Inferno, 'Abandon every hope, all ye who enter' written over the top of the gates to hell. Which brings up the co-incidence of Bonatti being referred to by Dante in the XX (I think) Canto as being one of the inmates. Rodin made a massive sculpture that is called 'Gates of Hell', which included many of his famous pieces such as the thinker, after being inspired by 'The Divine Comedy'. There is a scene from 'Inferno' in the artwork. Fortunately, for those who prefer paradise to hell, there is also a 'Gates of Paradise' which are doors to the Florence Bapistry. They were done by Lorenzo Ghiberti, a very famous Renaissance sculptor of the 1400's who, before his fame, won a competition to do a bronze set of doors. When he finished the first set, he was asked to do the second set. It was Michelangelo who called them 'Gates of Paradise.' The commission involved completing a series of biblical scenes. I normally know very little about artwork but I have been researching this for something else I am working on.
For some reason there is something in this phrase that fascinates me.
Yep. Know what you mean. When I read the reference in Bonatti I got a clear visual image that made a lot of sense. One of the things that I found interesting when I was in England was the remnants of old city walls in such places as Chester and Canterbury. We have nothing like this in Australia. It wasn't hard to visualise their old purpose of keeping control of who came in and who stayed out. Bonatti's description reminded me of that.

56
Just one point that I think deserves some clarification: I realise some of the above comments could be misleading. We can?t assume that the old man desired the woman simply because of the reception. As far as I understand, reception has little to do with issues of love and desire: attraction is shown by the movement of the planets.

Reception deals more with being acknowledged and attended to, according to the manner of the reception. Where a planet is received into the exaltation of another, it expects that planet to have much to offer, and the receiving planet will put on its best show, providing all it can to demonstrate its power. This is relevant in all sorts of situations, and is not tied into whether the planets like each other or not.

Where John Frawley says of Lilly?s assessment of the woman-old man chart:
"He judges that Mercury being in the exaltation of Jupiter shows that the man (Jupiter) wants the match."
This is slightly misleading because he has omitted reference to the fact that the two planets are separating from sextile, and there is a trine between Jupiter and the ascendant. Lilly actually says:
?the old man did much importune it because Jupiter receives Mercury in his exaltation, and casteth a friendly trine to the degree ascending?.
Jupiter?s trine to the ascendant is important in suggesting he is attracted to her physical appearance, and the sextile between the two significators shows that the relationship they had was a pleasing one. But the quicker moving planet is usually the one that moves to develop the relationship (if the aspect is applying) or break it down (if it is separating), so Mercury (our woman) is losing interest.

The reception by exaltation shows that the woman?s interest was recognised and responded to at an high level of expression, but it wouldn?t have meant much without the aspect. And had the aspect been a less pleasant one, the man would still have put himself out on behalf of her expectations of him, but he might not have delighted in her presence.

57
Hello All:

A couple of points and then I'm goig to give this a rest:

Sue writes:

Of course it matters. John and Lilly come up with different explanations on who loves whom. Lilly explains that the gentleman receives the woman and is therefore showing interest in her.
On the contrary, I don't see this as what is in the chart at all.

Lilly's explanation is almost non-existant. He tells us, that Mercury is her only significator, and then uses the Moon.

Then he says:


I judged there had been sometreaty about it (which was confessed) and the old man did much importune it.:
Obviously she is considering it, and therefore there is some attraction, or she would not have gone to an astrologer in the first place, and obviously the man wants it, or he would not have suggested marriage. This is a horary chart and we would expect to find these unspoken things in the chart, and we do findit via the planet loves the planet whose signs it is in theory. It is also true that using that method we see an awful lot of self interest going on in this affair that Lilly doesn't mention, and that makes a great deal of sense given the outcome. There is nothing in this method that gives us incorrect information.

Deb writes:

Where John Frawley says of Lilly?s assessment of the woman-old man chart

"He judges that Mercury being in the exaltation of Jupiter shows that the man (Jupiter) wants the match."

This is slightly misleading because he has omitted reference to the fact that the two planets are separating from sextile,
I don't know that this is misleading at all, since this separating aspect is mentioned by Lilly in the third sentence:
The querent hath Mercury only for her significator. Jupiter is for the aged man and party quesited after conserning Mercury had lately separated from a sextile of Jupiter, I judged there had lately been some treaty about it (which was confessed).
In other words this aspect has already been assigned a meaning: he asked; she said that she would think about it.

Jupiter?s trine to the ascendant is important in suggesting he is attracted to her physical appearance, and the sextile between the two significators shows that the relationship they had was a pleasing one. But the quicker moving planet is usually the one that moves to develop the relationship (if the aspect is applying) or break it down (if it is separating), so Mercury (our woman) is losing interest.

I ever denied that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Deb again:
You describe the woman involved as a ?young woman?, but we are only told that she is a gentlewoman; and elsewhere she is described as a maid (meaning unmarried). I?m not sure why I should need to be so particular about this point; perhaps arguing in this thread has now become habitual.

Indeed he ever says that, but he does go out of his way to point out that the quesited is an old man and mentions she has the hots for a soldier, so young woman is not a stretch.

Deb writes, but this is for Sue, too:

Secondly, I don?t advocate the use of Venus or the Sun as secondary significators in relationship matters, because I think they are only applicable under certain circumstances.
We cannot have this all ways. If we claim that we are following a tradition, but are free to disregard what we feel can and should be disregarded (no problem with this from me), but then criticize others for not following the tradtion and say they cannot call themselves tradtionalists or criticize moderns, then we're on shakey ground. Lilly specifically says to use, not only Venus and the Sun for the woman and man, but also to use the Moon's last aspected and next aspected planets. If we disregard all this are we still working within the meaning of the tradition? Sure we are, but we cannot then be so quick to label others' efforts as "untraditional" when they don't precisely follow an authority.

Deb disregrads Lilly on this point: fine, but now may we say she is no longer a tradtionalist? Of course not.

One last point before I bore the entire list to tears and send them screaming into the arms of the moderns. This particular horary, although very instructive, has scant little in the way of concrete delineation from Lilly. If we only count the words used up to the physical descriptions it is probably about 300.

Lilly only tells us that the querent is a woman and the quesited a aged man. He asked her to marry him. She isn't sure. She likes a soldier or young stud of some kind. Lilly then tells her to go and ask for a jointure (legal agreement proving he has the funds to care for her should he die). He can't do it., She leaves the guy. Everything else we think we know comes from our delineation of the chart.

John tells his students, and I cannot imagine an iota of disagreement on this point, that in order to understand Lilly (or anyone really), the student must cotinually ask him or herself, "Why is he doing this? Why does he say that?" In other words tear the chart apart until it is understood. This chart is a good exercise of that technique. And although there is more than one path to the truth, John's technique (for lack fo a better description) works very well here and in other charts.

Early this week (and I can hear the chant of SYNCHRONICITY rising from the throng), I looked at a horary posted elsewhere online. I had very little to go on since the posted chart was third hand so there was no way to ask certain relevant questions, but it was for fun, so I did it. When the response came back, it was filled with information, that had I known about it up front, I might have been more thorough. However, the one part I nailed right on the money, the one part that drew an appreciateive response, and definitive confirmation of accuracy, from the person posting the chart, was that part thath I used this method. I'm having a tough time believing it is wrong.

Thank you all for all your zest, zeal, and learned information.

Sue when are you planning on writing a much neede text on Bonatti?

Best wishes,

Tom

[/quote]