I had never seen John
Booker at that time; and telling him one day I had a desire to see him,
but first, ere I would speak with him, I would fit myself with my old
rules, and rub up my astrology; for at that time (and this was 1640) I
thought John Booker the greatest and most complete astrologer in the
world. My scholar Humphreys presently made answer, 'Tutor, you need not
pump for any of your former knowledge, John Booker is no such pumper; we
met,' saith he, 'the other day, and I was too hard for him myself, upon
judgment of three or four questions.' If all the transactions happening
unto that my scholar were in one volume, they would transcend either
_Guzman_, _Don Quixote_, _Lazarillo de Tormes_, or any other of the like
nature I ever did see.
Having now in part recovered my health, being weary of the country, and
perceiving there was money to be got in London, and thinking myself to
be as sufficiently enabled in astrology as any I could meet with, I made
it my business to repair thither; and so in September 1641 I did; where,
in the years 1642 and 1643, I had great leisure to better my former
knowledge: I then read over all my books of astrology, over and over;
had very little or no practice at all: and whereas formerly I could
never endure to read _Valentine Naibod's Commentary upon Alcabitius_,
now having seriously studied him, I found him to be the profoundest
author I ever met with; him I traversed over day and night, from whom I
must acknowledge to have advanced my judgment and knowledge unto that
height I soon after arrived at, or unto: a most rational author, and the
sharpest expositor of _Ptolemy_ that hath yet appeared.
Pages:
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69