Horary - Frawley's Departures

Hello all --

John Frawley's Horary Textbook arrived last night, because I've been bitten by the Horary bug, or the Horary Hex has been cast, or I'm doing the Horary Hustle, and I'll stop...

It was at once an exhilerating quick review of the book, and a bit anxiety producing. Why? Well, I think I'm reading some substantially new ways to read a chart that depart from what I've read so far. Or, maybe others have departed from Frawley.

For example, he speaks about how the type of aspect (square, opposition, trine, etc) of two planets tells you subtle information about the connection, but that there is an affirmative connection nonetheless, indicating a "yes" to connection. He uses an illustration of going to Vegas and winning money, and how each angle, even the negative ones such as square and opposition, show money won, but subtleties of that winning. O.k. -- that was new to me. Thus far, an opposition or square has tended to mean not a productive connection, as per what I've read with Lehman, Louis, and online.

Also, I noticed a totally new timing method than, say Lehman's. I have to sit down and carefully analyze it.

Often, it seems Frawley says, "Do it this way, or your judgments will be wrong!" Gulp.

Anyway, I know he is the King, and his book appears at first glance to be top notch. I just wondered other impressions about his variances from what I've seen, say Lehman and Louis say on angles and timing.

You will find some differences between Frawley and Lehman - and indeed others. Like all branches of Astrology (and for that matter Tarot) you will find variances in approach and interpretation. I find the best approach is to try out some of his ideas, IF you think they fit in with your own stance. Otherwise make some mental notes on his approach, they will at least widen your horizons.

In terms of squares and oppositions, Lilly says:

'Things are also produced to perfection when the significators apply by square Aspect provided each Planet have dignity in the degree wherein they are and apply out of proper and good houses, otherwise not'.

'Sometimes it happens that a matter is brought to pass when the significators have applied by opposition but it hath been when there hath been mutual reception by house and out of friendly houses and the Moon separating from the significator of the thing demanded and applying presently to the Lord of the Ascendant'. He goes on to say that he has rarely seen this happen and even then the querent ends up wishing it hadn't.

Frawley is also well in to sports Astrology where there are contests and he frequently relates there that squares and oppositions are as good as trines and sextiles.

I am enjoying Frawley. He does speak with an authoritarianism that I understand is characteristic of his work.

So, I am open to squares and oppositions bringing about an event, as Frawaly says-- an aspect is a connection, period. He provides an example in his book of doing a Horary chart in regards to going to a Casino, and all aspects (from Trine to Opposition) show "winning," but the particular aspects determine subtleties of that win: Is it fast, easy, slow, hard, lots of work?

However, I appreciate that to balance Lehman/Louis/Frawley/Lilly, it makes sense that a square or opposition would be productive given its dignity. This somewhat allows all of them to be "right".

The only major departure I am seeing is his "timing". He gives Cadent houses a Quick meaning, while Lehman and others give this attribute to Angular houses. I am more comfortable with the Angular idea.

Timing is one of the most imprecise elements of horary, as there are several possible approaches and picking the best one is more an art than a science. The 'best' one can also vary from case to case depending on the question and the circumstances.

On the timing by house, Lilly (Book II p175) says that cadent houses equate to days, succedent to weeks and angular to months - providing both significators are in the same type of house. Even then Lilly says the Astrologer must use discretion on the time period as some issues may take years.

It becomes more complex if the significators are in different types of house, Lilly opts for the longer period involved, i.e. if one of the significators is in an angular house he goes for months irrespective of the house of the other significator.

In the above discussion Lilly takes no account of the signs in which the significators are placed. Lehman in her book does allow for the sign and so has a two fold way of determing timing based on the triplicity of the sign and the triplicity of the house.

I think elsewhere in Christian Astrology Lilly makes reference to the triplicity of the sign affecting timing, so think it through and then choose which time frame seems appropriate to the question asked.