Best books on Horary published before 2000

[uranianplutonian]

I see 'The Only Way to Learn about Horary and Electrical Astrology
Book by Joan McEvers and Marion D March', but I feel suspicious about how the title is trying to sell, 'The Only Way'.

Other titles I've come across: 'Horary Astrology Plain & Simple: Fast & Accurate Answers to Real World Questions by Anthony Louis'

'Horary Astrology Rediscovered: A Study in Classical Astrology by Olivia Barclay'. I like the humble nature of this title.

Any suggestions/recommendations are much appreciated!

[Jesusistheway]

Anthony Louis' book is helpful in tackling horary. As far as gylphs and charts its not that helpful because you have to read the whole book. I skimmed through it. Works good enough though.

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by uranianplutonian

I see 'The Only Way to Learn about Horary and Electrical Astrology
Book by Joan McEvers and Marion D March', but I feel suspicious about how the title is trying to sell, 'The Only Way'.

Other titles I've come across: 'Horary Astrology Plain & Simple: Fast & Accurate Answers to Real World Questions by Anthony Louis'

'Horary Astrology Rediscovered: A Study in Classical Astrology by Olivia Barclay'. I like the humble nature of this title.

Any suggestions/recommendations are much appreciated!

If KHZ disagrees with the greater tradition,
then I do think we can say "...she's wrong..."
if of course we assume the opinion she's giving is to convey the tradition
and not pretending to be something she plucked out of the air as her own invention.

EDIT
I quickly checked KHZ's understanding of reception

and whatever it is it doesn't follow the tradition

and either sources someone who got confused from Lilly
or she herself does.

In any event I don't think KHZ's book should be taken as an authority on Horary and its wider tradition

Paul has re-read Karen Hamaker-Zondag
and found that her understanding does not follow the tradition
and Karen Hamaker-Zondag therefore

either

sourced a writer who got confused with Lilly
- or

Karen Hamaker-Zondag was herself confused by Lilly's ideas

Barclay was one of the early rescusitators of horary astrology, and her historical research was extensive. Her sources include Al-Biruni, Bonatti, Coley, Culpepper, Lilly plus Hellenistic astrologers whose works pre-dated the development of horary and traditional astrologers better known for other branches.

Karen Hamaker-Zondag's book is much more streamlined, but appears to agree with Barclay. More to the point, these women reported highly accurate results with their methods. Do we quarrel with success merely because they are "modern"? Seriously? In a field as tradition-bound as horary?

Paul explained Karen Hamaker-Zondag
and
Olivia Barclay were both relying on other sources
and not inventing anything
because they were using very specific terms
which have their roots in traditional astrology

- for example 'reception'

We know that KHZ and Barclay are relying on other sources
and are not inventing anything

- we know this as they are using very specific terms
which have their roots in the tradition (like, say, 'reception'
or are referencing older authors or their opinions).
Now whilst on some universal way we must accept that all such opinions are subjective,
the idea that one person relaying another's information is subjective is very limited.

Lilly and Bonatti etc. actually said certain things,
if I said he Lilly said something which he didn't,
we can't retort with "...well it's subjective what he said...."
because it isn't,
of course I may interpret what he says one way and you another.
But again when we look to Lilly's actual examples
we may well see that actually one person is '...right...' and another '...wrong...'.

It is from this and from the ENTIRE tradition
of which KHZ and Olivia Barclay may not have been aware
that we can now give more definitive responses
not to what is Objectively Right
but rather
to what is more inline with the tradition of astrology
that these authors are drawing from
and
what is not.

So it is not like all opinions are equal here
- when we know that they are drawing on the tradition
we only need to examine that tradition
to see if they got it right or wrong

and we have a LOT more information today
than Barclay did when she wrote her book.

Just as Barclay sources and references back to Lilly,
so too does Lilly reference back to the likes of, say Bonatti
who goes back to Sahl and so on
and unlike in Barclay's time,
we now have easily available to us all those books that all those authors were using themselves.

Clearly

Olivia Barclay lacked the entirety of the information we now have

Today translations of original astrological ancient works
are widely available for example from

https://bendykes.com/product-category/questions/










.

[JUPITERASC]

*







https://bendykes.com/

[conspiracy theorist]

Jupiter, this book was published after 2000 so it does not count.

[david starling]

Originally Posted by Samantha Bean

Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson: HORARY ASTROLOGY

Ivy was the best horary astrologer in the 20th century.

Your Post #666!

[JUPITERASC]

Originally Posted by conspiracy theorist

Jupiter, this book was published after 2000 so it does not count.

thanks, you are correct - was published 2010

Originally Posted by JUPITERASC

https://bendykes.com/

[uranianplutonian]

Thank you for all of your suggestions. I will look into each of these!