Skyscript Astrology Forum

I was recently given a copy of the book, 'Familiar To All: William Lilly and Astrology in the Seventeenth Century' by Derek Parker. It is a fascinating book, recommended to all. (I was very surprised, for example, to read that Lilly referred to himself 'William Lilly, Student in Aftrologie.') But I have a question which I hope some of the traditionalists here will be kind enough to answer:

Derek Parker writes (p. 255):

'Lilly himself, in the preface to his 1677 Anglicus, commended Coley to the reader as an "Industrious and no less Ingenious Artist" who would "continue what so many years we have carried on for the Honour of Astrology." In 1676, he contributed a Foreword to Coley's most ambitious work, the "Clavis Astrologiae Elimita" (dedicated to "the most eminently accomplish'd in all ingenious literature, Elias Ashmole."):

'"I am now neer 74 years of Age compleat, and after much sickness and Indisposition of Body in my Old Age (especially these two years past) I am now by the blessing of God upon the means used, reasonably well recovered again; and it was all along my intention (had I not been unhappily prevented and discouraged) to have freely communicated to the world (for the benefit of all honest and grateful Sons of Urania) which many years since I promised in my "Introduction to Astrology." But this Author (being the only Publick Person that I have hopes of) hath now with no small pains and Industry, saved me that labour, in presenting the world with this most compleat piece of astrology..."'

Was Coley's 'Clavis Astrologiae Elimita, or a Key to the Whole Art of Astrology' intended by Lilly and Coley to replace Lilly's own 'Christian Astrology' or to update it in some way...?

In which ways does Coley's book differ from Lilly's? Is it superior to it in either substance or style? Is it more accessible as a textbook of 17th century astrology? I am asking because I am thinking of giving a text on traditional astrology to a friend as a birthday gift and am wondering if Coley's book might not be a better choice....

Was Coley's 'Clavis Astrologiae Elimita, or a Key to the Whole Art of Astrology' intended by Lilly and Coley to replace Lilly's own 'Christian Astrology' or to update it in some way...?

Coley became Lilly?s adopted son. I think Lilly was simply at an age where he knew he had fulfilled his ambitions and was trying to do Coley a favour.

In which ways does Coley's book differ from Lilly's? Is it superior to it in either substance or style? Is it more accessible as a textbook of 17th century astrology? I am asking because I am thinking of giving a text on traditional astrology to a friend as a birthday gift and am wondering if Coley's book might not be a better choice....

It?s an interesting book and I think it would make a great present for someone who is already a fan of Lilly-style astrology. But it?s in no way superior to Lilly?s and definitely not a better choice than Christian Astrology if they don?t already have that. We get additional information on certain techniques here and there which are interesting in that, being written by someone so close to Lilly, we wonder whether they are showing us more about what Lilly would have done. One example I referred to recently in the forum concerns combustion. Lilly?s examples don?t demonstrate clearly whether he applied his definition of combustion needing to be within the same sign, but the fact that Coley refers to Mercury as combust and never to Venus (out-of-sign but within the limits of combustion) throws favour to the supposition that he did.

The blight of Coley?s work is that he uses the same chart throughout the whole book as an example of technique in action. So everything seems hypothetical. I think the real value of Lilly?s work lies in his examples, and the fact that you know these are genuine judgements from real situations.

Thank you -- this was very helpful. I'll probably give Lilly's CA instead!

Uses the same horoscope throughout -- hmmm, sounds very modern!