The Real Astrology Applied by John Frawley (London: Apprentice Books, 2002)

This book is a companion and sequel to John Frawley's popular The Real Astrology, which was both a general attack on modern psychological astrology and an introduction to traditional or "real" astrology, especially the astrology of William Lilly. This work is an edited compilation of previously-published articles and essays.

The chapters still exhibit Frawley's charming humor, but aim more at educating the reader on various concepts and techniques in traditional astrology. There are chapters on reception; one called "Let's Get This Straight," offering Frawley's take on issues like the Moon's Nodes and timing in horary astrology; a biographical chapter on Lilly; a major chapter on traditional meanings of the houses; and others.

The major strength of this volume is Frawley's devoted attention to issues which students of traditional and medieval astrology often have questions about and need to know -- students will appreciate his experience and approach to synastry, calculating temperament, the houses, and other interesting and vexed topics.

The two quibbles I have with this book are related problems shared by most treatments of "traditional" astrology: their reliance on Lilly leads them to neglect natal figures and rely almost exclusively on his (Lilly's) interpretations of issues. Most modern astrologers and their clients are used to natal astrology, and the ability to predict events from the natal figure is not only an impressive feature of genuine Western astrology but clear proof of its main claims to objectivity and reality. But since Lilly's book on nativities is sometimes hard to follow, has few example charts, and neglects certain medieval practices, most traditional astrologers like Frawley tend to favor horary. The result is that if you do not understand the myriad rules of horary, explanations of horary charts can go by too quickly, seem too slick, and natal interpretations are in danger of seeming boring because of their absence in comparison with the sexier, more numerous, and immediate horary question.

A related problem is Lilly's use of his predecessors. Usually he is a good reporter and interpreter of the tradition. But on some issues he does not represent the "real" astrology of his predecessors. An example is Frawley's use of Lilly's definition of reception. Frawley/Lilly understands reception as being in a sign or degree where another planet has dignity (e.g., Mars in Aquarius is "received" by Saturn because Saturn rules Aquarius). And Frawley has interesting and helpful things to say about how to interpret such a situation in a horary chart. But this is not the truly traditional definition of reception. Traditional reception usually required that (a) the two planets aspect each other, and that (b) reception had to be by domicile, exaltation, or two of the minor dignities. What Frawley is really describing is disposition, which is very important but not the same as reception. For example, if you are in my house while I am away, you are subject to my house, its rules, and what is in it. But I am not "receiving" you as a guest unless I recognize you or invite you. Aspects between the planets are like an invitation or recognition. That is different from you simply being there while I am gone (disposition). This is more than a merely academic point: if we are dealing with a mundane chart and the issue is whether or not there will be a war, true reception between key planets may avoid the war. But mere disposition will not.

Apart from these quibbles, The Real Astrology Applied is a valuable and interesting book.