I wrote (in reference to TSE's Tradition essay):
T> Is he being sarcastic when he says "It is a method for which
T> the horoscope is auspicious"?
And Rick wrote:
R> Sorry, I've thought some on this but I have no idea how to read
R> this other then to ignore it as an aside.
Rick: In context, here is the line in the essay:
"In using the myth, in manipulating a continuous parallel between contemporaneity and antiquity, Mr. Joyce is pursuing a method which others must pursue after him. . . It is simply a way of controlling, of ordering, of giving a shape and a significance to the immense panorama of futility and anarchy which is contemporary history. . . . It is a method for which the horoscope is auspicious. . ."
Given the line's prominent placement, it's got to be more than an aside.
I've been thinking that the idea of a horoscope, the idea of astrology, is that the planets and the stars greatly influence our individual lives and fate. In other words, something "bigger than ourselves" plays a vital part in our lives.
Perhaps what TSE is alluding to is that the "mythical method" is also trying to establish a link between us and something "bigger than ourselves". In other words, when Joyce uses the Greek myths of Ulysses' amazing multi-year voyage and his eventual return home, and parallels it with a one-day "journey" around a city in Ireland (and his eventual return to Molly Bloom), Joyce is stating an implicit comparison/equivalence between the mythical Ulysses from antiquity and a contemporary "ordinary person". So maybe, for Eliot, the horoscope/astrology, which claims that the fate of an "ordinary person" has its roots in the heavens is "auspicious", that is, is yet another promising metaphor by which some other author can "control, order, give a shape and a significance to the immense panorama of futility and anarchy which is contemporary history".
Just a thought.
-- Tom --