John Frawley has recently published his third book The Horary Textbook - sure to be an international best seller. His first book, The Real Astrology,
received widespread applaud and the Spica astrology award for
International Book of the Year, 2001. It has been described as "a
searching - and often hilarious - critique of modern astrology, and a
detailed introduction to all the main branches of the traditional
craft". It was quickly followed by The Real Astrology Applied,
in 2002. John is one of the most outspoken proponents for traditional
techniques, having adopted a style which is challenging, provocative,
and indeed very witty.
John also publishes his own magazine, The Astrologer's Apprentice, teaches his own correspondence courses on horary, natal and electional astrology, (the 'Apprenticeship'), has an active practice, and lectures widely. Further details are available on his website at http://www.johnfrawley.com.
The following article was originally recorded in 1997 and published in the spring edition of the Traditional Astrologer Magazine in 1998. John has given permission for it to be republished as it first appeared, with the incorporation of additional material, obtained in January and February 2000, which is appended at the end.
John also publishes his own magazine, The Astrologer's Apprentice, teaches his own correspondence courses on horary, natal and electional astrology, (the 'Apprenticeship'), has an active practice, and lectures widely. Further details are available on his website at http://www.johnfrawley.com.
The following article was originally recorded in 1997 and published in the spring edition of the Traditional Astrologer Magazine in 1998. John has given permission for it to be republished as it first appeared, with the incorporation of additional material, obtained in January and February 2000, which is appended at the end.
Q: How did you get interested in astrology?
I've been interested in astrology since my very early teens reading
sun-sign columns, 'Is the girl at the bus-stop going to smile at me
today?' - the usual stuff. And then progressing from there gradually
studying more and more seriously.
Q: So did you get into horary fairly early on?
No, it's only within the last five or six years I've been involved with
horary astrology mainly through frustration with modern schools of
astrology being very vague. I had much more affinity with the ideas
behind horary, and the astrology is very definite, very concrete. You
are definitely right or definitely wrong.
Q: Could you give an example of the kind of thing you mean when you refer to 'modern schools of astrology being very vague'?
If we look at the keywords that the moderns tend to use in considering
the planets - so many of them are vague, more-or-less meaningless tags.
With traditional technique we are working with the concrete right from
the start. Mars, for example, is not 'aggression', nor Venus 'harmony',
but they are 'your dad' or 'your sister' or whatever. So, inevitably,
our judgements are concrete, even if we are working on a psychological
level. The traditional technique also makes it far easier for the
astrologer to keep himself and his pre-conceptions out of the chart. We
don't have to regard being a healer as the highest form of human life.
Q: So far as vagueness goes, isn't it inevitable that, people being as
complex as they are, character analysis will be more vague (or
ambiguous) than a horary judgement? Is the issue here one of
traditional versus
modern astrology or is it more a case of you preferring horary to
psychological work?
There's a measure of truth in what you say; but traditional method,
whether natal or horary, is capable of very sharp psychological
delineation. It is sometimes necessary to do this, even with horaries. I
think it helps in that with the traditional method, by virtue of the
way in which we have learned it, we are working straight from the
astrology, not thru this dreadful sub-Jungian vernacular in which so
much modern astrology is cast. This gives even our psychological
delineations a great clarity.
Q: Were you seeing clients before you started doing horary?
I saw clients for a while, a long time ago, doing natal work. But it's
only in the last three or four years that I've been working with clients
as a main income. I'm not very good at doing things by halves. I can't
do something in the daytime and then do something else in the evening.
So it's only since I actually gave up a day-job I've been seeing
clients.
Q: What difference did you find in seeing people pre-horary and post-horary?
It's difficult to judge really, because it's such a long time ago that I
was seeing clients. So what comes from a different approach, and what
just comes from greater maturity it's difficult to tell. One of the
nice things about horary is that you can tell if you are getting it
right. So you get your confidence boosted by feedback - or have it
knocked down if you get it wrong!
Q: Who would you cite as being your major influences?
.jpg)