25 Years With the Astrological Association
It is 25 years ago this summer that I joined the Astrological Association; I recall that the first Journal I received was the 21st Anniversary issue.
I had only been a student of astrology for a few years, having come to the subject via the faculty of Astrological Studies' Certificate Course (which, incidentally, I never completed) in 1974 when I was living and working in London. I think one of the reasons many people stay AA members for a short time is because they join without enough astrological knowledge under their belts; it took me five years to have the confidence to join the AA. Had I joined in 1974 I am sure I would have been overwhelmed by the high standard of articles that appeared in the Journal.
Having joined, it then took me another two years to get up the courage to go to my first Annual Conference, and in fact I attended eight consecutive ones, 1981-88 inclusive. Each Conference seemed to have a distinct character of its own, though this was probably a composite of the venue's "atmosphere" and the variety of lecturers from all parts of the UK and overseas.
The 1981 conference was at Loughborough and it was a remarkably warm weekend for September; I recall seeing Roger Elliot walking around in khaki shorts and sandals. Jeff Mayo gave the Carter Memorial Lecture that year, and it was the only time I ever saw him. It was also the only time I ever saw John Addey, for he died six months later. It was something of a swan-song, too, for Ada Phillips who stepped down as both Membership Secretary and Treasurer. (The posts were allocated to two separate people afterwards.)
In 1982 it was Canterbury, with Maggie Hyde giving the CML this time. I particularly remember the slow train from London through the quiet Kent countryside and realising that the soubriquet "The Garden of England" was well earned. I have forgotten most of the lecturers, with the exception of John Naylor, whose talk was profound, authoritative and packed with detail. But the main reason why I remember Canterbury has nothing to do with astrology. The thing I remember most is the complex colour-coding of the corridors and bedrooms. Some of the conference delegates never quite "got it right", and one could see various people dashing around in their nightwear or various stages of undress, vainly seeking their bedrooms. It was hilarious.
The York conference in 1983 was OK, but the weather was not too brilliant; it rained for most of the weekend. In 1984, it was the turn of Exeter and it was my very first Conference as an AA Council member as well as head of the Data Section. The 1984 event was probably the best I ever attended, certainly as far as content was concerned. Although I skipped a few lectures, present at Exeter were Derek Appleby, Francoise Gauquelin, Christina Rose, Donna Cunningham and, not least, the Zeus-like Robert hand who gave two talks that weekend and received a standing ovation on that Sunday afternoon - a rare accolade in those days.
The 1985 conference (Loughborough again) was remarkable for the talks I did not go to and, instead, some of us just sat around talking astrology in the empty dining-room. I recall one particular session with Dennis Elwell, Roger Elliot and a few others, in which we chatted about various topics of astrology. Inevitably, with Dennis and Roger both present, the subject of serious Sun-sign astrology cropped up. As always, Roger's attitude was "Live and let live" but I shall never forget Dennis' simple phrase "We are the possessors of a secret knowledge." I agreed with him then and I would still agree with that view now. Of course, I am not advocating that the ownership of astrology should be in the hands of an elitist few; it's just that many people who have their hands on it are not really "qualified" to do so. Ever since that day in 1930 when RH Naylor initiated "newspaper" astrology in producing the natal chart of the latest Royal baby, Princess Margaret Rose, everyone has become an "expert". What was in William Lilly's day a sacred science has now turned into a consumer product, and frankly I don't see what any of us can do about it. Maybe things will turn full circle in the next few centuries, when the Age of Aquarius will be with us and astrology returns to its former role as a "secret knowledge" which rests in the hands of responsible people.
Oh dear, maybe I'm beginning to sound like an astrological Victor Meldrew. Even so, I wouldn't go so far as to say that astrology is in decline. Rather, I think, it's one's individual view of astrology which changes over the years. There was a time when my 3rd house Jupiter in Sagittarius (albeit retrograde) wanted to spread the news about this marvellous subject I had discovered to just about everyone I met. But nowadays I just can't be bothered.
Anyway, back to the Conferences! After the next three AA Conferences I never went to another one. In particular, though, I recall the 1987 event at Colchester. There was nothing wrong with the content that year, but I discovered afterwards there had been numerous complaints about the venue. I recall the staff on duty that weekend were not particularly helpful either, and I was happy to be leaving the place on the Sunday afternoon.
I was a member of the AA Council until 1989 but I'm sorry to say that I never cut much of a dash during my five years there. Maybe I was never cut out to play "politics" anyway, but when one is sitting at the same table as fifteen or sixteen others, it's often difficult to make one's presence felt. (I have a feeling that the number present at AA Council meetings these days is a lot lower than that.)
Finally, why has no one written a history of the Astrological Association? I suppose one could argue that the Journal is a record of just about everything that happened since 1958, but I'm sure there are many people who have been AA member for more than my 25 years who will be giving us their reminiscences in time for the AA's 50th anniversary.