The link to that interview is http://www.skyscript.co.uk/mccann.html

It has been 9 years since Maurice McCann expressed his views on Horary Astrology. Now, Maurice also happens to be member of this forum. I would request him if he would be kind enough to further share his findings/views regarding validity or working of basic rules of horary. Any advice for the beginners?

Hi Gryffindor,
After many years of studying the rules of horary astrology in detail I have come to the conclusion that they are unreliable. They are not hard and fast as they do not always resolve questions. As a result, several years ago, I decided to quit the practice of horary astrology altogether.

Nevertheless, I would advise beginners to study horary astrology as they will gain much experience from studying the rules such as translation and collection of light, refranation, frustration and prohibition as well as all the other traditional rules. Also, many insights can be gained from studying the planets as 'friends and enemies' as described by Al Biruni and Henry Coley. These rules can be applied to Natal astrology and I am convinced that much more knowledge of the natal chart can be gained from their application.

Good luck to everyone.

Maurice.

After many years of studying the rules of horary astrology in detail I have come to the conclusion that they are unreliable. They are not hard and fast as they do not always resolve questions. As a result, several years ago, I decided to quit the practice of horary astrology altogether.

Wow. I'm gobsmacked.

Astra non mentiuntur, sed astrologi bene mentiuntur de astris. Ecce vere Chaldeus in quo dolus non est!

It might seem like a surprising remark, but it ought to be read with McCann?s interview comments in mind. He describes how, at that time, he was testing out the rules of horary using relatively unimportant and self generated questions:

?Will so-and-so phone me today?', or 'Will I get an email when I log on?', or 'Will I get a letter in the post tomorrow morning?'

It seems that the motivation was to achieve an almost mechanical approach to interpretation, so that the ?rules? are taken as exactly that, which (if it worked) would have allowed him to create a program that generates reliable answers, even to rather trivial questions.

I wondered if I could get someone to program it all - and that is how the program came about. Now I can roll off a horary, and be pretty sure about getting it right, in about four to five minutes.

There's no interpretation involved in a 'yes/no' horary; you just go through the rules. Now what that means is that the program could be updated to answer those questions itself. This is for people who know what house the question belongs to. Now if you get people who don't know what house it's about, you can say, 'OK - there's the answer for the 5th, 7th, and 11th - you asked the question, you go away and make up your own mind.

I?m not at all surprised that the results failed to demonstrate reliability. Horary is a judicial art and not a science, and it won?t tolerate a mechanical approach. That is why there is such importance upon there being sincerity in the act of asking and radicality in the question. Ben Dykes' recent article Roots ? being ? God ? freedom really drives this point home.

Regardless of whether he continues to practice, Maurice McCann?s study of horary has borne terrific fruits for those of us who want to understand astrological history and traditional technique, so I hope he continues to contribute his thoughts. Our styles are probably quite different but I know that I have personally learned a great deal from him and continue to do so. So good luck to you too Maurice. I hope you?ll keep posting here from time to time, especially when you can pull us up on the details of technique.

Deb

Horary is a judicial art and not a science

Well put.

I had in mind his comments on Lilly:

But you can see his weaknesses. The horary he did on Presbyterianism - 'Will Presbytry Stand?' is in my mind - and I'll back it up - a total propaganda job. It's not based on any horary techniques of any kind whatsoever. He was really bending over backwards to give a negative result on that question, and it is totally fabricated. When I looked at that I thought, 'Well - it's all very well to put your propaganda into the almanacs', (because he was a propagandist, and he earned a pension of ?100 a year from Parliament for that), 'but you don't put it into a text book. Because you're trying to teach the right techniques of horary.'

There are three or four in there. The Presbyterian one is the most obvious, but the battle of Alresford, I think, is another one. Because he is stretching matters there. He is trying to make things work when they don't work, and is overlooking little things that don't suit his point of view.

It seems that Mr. McCann wishes to avoid even the slightest possibility that he might be "trying to make thinks work when they don't work," i.e., stretching an interpretation to fit a preconceived assumption, and for this he should be commended.

I?m all for commending McCann but that doesn?t mean that we can?t commend Lilly too. Actually I think that the Presbytery chart is a really good judgement which is very informative in its use of technique (let?s remember that not so long back everyone assumed that Lilly was ?full of mistakes? by referring to the Moon?s out of signs aspects, etc). How much propaganda influenced his judgement I don?t know, but the sequence of historical events that followed the publication of the chart certainly add to the credit of his reputation. I refer to this in my article about the Moon at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html , and comment about how it accurately described the subsequent rise of Cromwell in footnote 31 of that article. I see nothing in the chart that does not accord with Lilly?s usual technique.

I don?t recognise a chart in CA about the battle of Arlesford, but most of the civil war charts published in CA were subjected to astrological and historical scrutiny by David Plant, in his series of articles published in the Traditional Astrologer magazine. It is very hard to read those commentaries and not appreciate what Lilly was doing, why he was doing it, and how informative those charts are in reference to the historical influences in play.

People have different perspectives of course. For example, I know that Maurice has criticised Lilly for failing to detail antiscia connections; but there have been times when I have noticed antiscia connections and have chosen to ignore them, so I think we adopt a more constructive policy when we chose to understand and learn from what was done, rather than criticise historical examples on account of what was not done.

Since horary is a judicial art, it follows that the judgement of the astrologer involved in the creation of the chart is more important than the opinions of anyone else who looks at the chart in hindsight and with passive interest. It?s a rare thing to have an emotive interest in a political event and not have any personal bias. I'm quite sure that Lilly had his biases, but any assumptions we make regarding how they influenced his judgements might equally be reflecting some bias of our own.

I?m all for commending McCann but that doesn?t mean that we can?t commend Lilly too.

Of course not; commending the one doesn't necessarily imply that the other is not also worthy of commendation, nor that Lilly lacks it.

My comment was in response to Mr. McCann's revelation: he reached the decision to "quit the practice of horary astrology altogether" apparently because he believes that to do otherwise would involve an element of self-deception (i.e., "stretching matters") since, in his experience, "the rules of horary astrology ... are unreliable."

I see nothing in the chart that does not accord with Lilly?s usual technique.

Of course, it's impossible to have an interest in anything and not have any personal bias; as David Plant notes,

Lilly ventured into international politics in 1658 by urging an English alliance with Sweden and received a gold chain and medal from the Swedish King, Charles Gustavus, in acknowledgement. Lilly's rival John Gadbury, however, supported an alliance with Denmark, then at war with Sweden, and correctly predicted the death of the Swedish monarch, which Lilly had failed to foresee. His reputation was dented again in 1659 when he predicted that Cromwell's son Richard would succeed in establishing a strong government after Oliver's death. In fact, Richard Cromwell was deposed within a few months of Lilly's prediction.

Perhaps Mr. McCann might wish to share his thoughts on this?

This is taking the discussion away from horary, because those judgements were mundane predictions based on ingresses and eclipses. As I said, it is easy to criticise Lilly for what he ?failed to see? when the reality is that he may have had good reason ?not to look?. Or maybe he looked and didn?t see it ? I?m not sure that matters. Do we only give credit to mundane astrology if astrologers are absolutely right about absolutely everything?

I don?t know about Lilly predicting long life for Richard Cromwell ? the only judgement I know of that is pertinent to this is an ingress chart that wishes him long life, which is not the same as predicting it (Merlini Anglici Ephemeris 1659, A4). I can tell you that although David Plant will comment on where Lilly fell down, (as I will), he has respect for Lilly?s work overall (as I do). It?s probably because his reputation was as big as it was, that many astrologers feel inclined to either diss him or deify him (both are equally unhealthy).

As far as his horary work is concerned, his results are impressive overall, but we need to appreciate that he was creative with his technique, and horary astrology works best when the astrologer judges meaning within context. That does not mean that the rules are ignored, but that they are understood well enough to be remoulded according to the circumstances of each individual chart. So I don?t see how any of this important element could be coded into a computer program. I also don't consider a certain amount of stretching as necessarily equating to self-deception; although if the astrologer?s understanding or judgemental capabilities are weak, then yes, it might do. Under the same circumstances astrology as a whole could be labelled an art of self-deception, I suppose.

This is taking the discussion away from horary, because those judgements were mundane predictions based on ingresses and eclipses. As I said, it is easy to criticise Lilly for what he ?failed to see? when the reality is that he may have had good reason ?not to look?. Or maybe he looked and didn?t see it ? I?m not sure that matters. Do we only give credit to mundane astrology if astrologers are absolutely right about absolutely everything?

I believe it is Arthur Mather (or possibly Ivan Kelly?) who points out that correct predictions cannot be empirically evaluated unless one also takes incorrect predictions into account. Be that as it may, since I'm open to the possibility that astrology is probably not empirically verifiable, I don't feel the need to give credit to any form of it as anything other than an exercise in symbolic association and imaginal expression. For many, that may not be enough. For me, it is.

I don?t know about Lilly predicting long life for Richard Cromwell ? the only judgement I know of that is pertinent to this is an ingress chart that wishes him long life, which is not the same as predicting it (Merlini Anglici Ephemeris 1659, A4). I can tell you that although David Plant will comment on where Lilly fell down, (as I will), he has respect for Lilly?s work overall (as I do). It?s probably because his reputation was as big as it was, that many astrologers feel inclined to either diss him or deify him (both are equally unhealthy).

I don't think it's a matter of either dismissal or deification: for reasonable, intelligent people, to question is neither to dismiss nor to deify; it is simply to question. Was he right or was he wrong?

As far as his horary work is concerned, his results are impressive overall, but we need to appreciate that he was creative with his technique, and horary astrology works best when the astrologer judges meaning within context.

We would need to know whether Lilly reported only his best cases in order to accurately evaluate his results. I agree that his creativity may have been a significant factor (possibly the significant factor) in his success.

I also don't consider a certain amount of stretching as necessarily equating to self-deception; although if the astrologer?s understanding or judgemental capabilities are weak, then yes, it might do. Under the same circumstances astrology as a whole could be labelled an art of self-deception, I suppose.

"Stretching matters" here and there is also called plausible deniability. In his presentation at the United Astrology Congress in 1998, Geoffrey Cornelius pointed out:

Intelligent critics of astrology maintain that astrologers have always managed to use the prevailing culture and ethos of the times in which they live (science and philosophy of the period) to disguise themselves and cunningly continue with their practices. This is absolutely true. That is how our extraordinary form of symbolic consciousness has survived. We disguised ourselves as Aristotelian science for the better part of two millennia. Then we tacked ourselves onto modern science in the revival of two centuries ago when astrology disguised itself as magnetism and electricity, and later as radio waves. Depth psychology [i.e. Jung] is just the latest disguise. Perhaps we can do nothing else, for how can this form of symbolism survive without being in the corrupt position of lying about itself in some way in order to get by?

In any event, it might be illuminating to have Mr. McCann comment further on his decision to "quit the practice of horary astrology altogether," should he wish to do so.

I don't think it's a matter of either dismissal or deification: for reasonable, intelligent people, to question is neither to dismiss nor to deify; it is simply to question. Was he right or was he wrong?

I didn?t say that there is a tendency to dismiss him or deify him; I said to diss him or deify him ? meaning that the magnitude of Lilly?s reputation can often invoke extremes of either needing to insult, criticise and undermine his work, or treat it as sacred and beyond reproach. (Don?t? take the comment as aimed at you or anyone personally, BTW, I?m expressing my opinion of how things strike me generally). If you mean was he right or wrong about Richard Cromwell, I made my point earlier: as far as I know, he was neither, for the same reasons that he was not ?wrong? simply because he did not predict the death of the Swedish Monarch. If an astrologer predicted that John Smith would become leader of the labour party in 1992, but made no comment related to his sudden death from a heart attack in 1994, does this mean that the astrologer should be subjected to scorn?

I have no doubt that Lilly was sometimes wrong in his political predictions. He lived through one of the most divided periods of this country?s history, so it is hard to imagine how many political pressures impacted upon him. A number of times he had to think quick to save his position. But considering how heavy these political pressures were, he is remembered as being fairly moderate in his politics. I?m more interested in his knowledge and use of technique, and make allowance for the politics. The point about Richard could be explored further if you have a reference to where Lilly predicts long life. My knowledge is only of where he wishes him long life ? a sort of blessing upon his new role. Talking about the death of Cromwell, and how secure he left the nation?s defences, Lilly writes:

? having to all the conquests in the last year of his government, added the strong town of Dunkirk in Flanders unto the dominion of England, [he] left unto his successor Richard, now lord protector of England, such an army of commanders and soldiers, so stout a fleet of ships, and so able seamen as no prince of Europe may compare with him. The Lord make him as victorious as his father and double the father?s spirit of wisdom upon him, for he hath very great and difficult work in hand, &c.

In the following year?s almanac Lilly talks about why a clear prediction of death was not made, despite doubts about his continuance which were evident from mundane charts and lunar and solar eclipses. He writes:

We appeal to the indifferent reader, whether if we had clearly discovered his dissolution, it had been either wisdom or discretion to have been publicly free in our judgement unto the Protector, or to the world, at that only point.
Pincipi ne malum magnum unquam, sed periculum, praedicito. Never tell a prince or ruler any great evil is falling upon him, only hint a danger. The example of Gauricus hath otherwise catechized [instructed] us.

So there you have the explanation as Lilly gave it. I don?t think the reference to Gauricus implies that the Latin aphorism comes from his work; I think it refers to the example of when Gauricus was strung up and subjected to the life-threatening punishment of having his body smashed several times against a brick wall, for making a political prediction that was judged to have had political consequences. Cardan no doubt kept this in mind too, when he made his prediction of long life for King Edward, whilst a guest in his court. As he later pointed out, what else could he do at that time and place? Astrologers that were not pragmatic in sensitive political matters did not last long.

I didn?t say that there is a tendency to dismiss him or deify him; I said to diss him or deify him.

Wicked catty wampus notwithstanding, I thought you might mean dismiss, since the Slangus DawgSpeak Slanguage Dictionary I consulted offers this definition:

Diss [alternate spelling dis; a shortening of words like disrespect, dismiss, disparage, etc.; especially found in Black English]

My bad, dawg, my bad!

If you mean was he right or wrong about Richard Cromwell, I made my point earlier: as far as I know, he was neither, for the same reasons that he was not ?wrong? simply because he did not predict the death of the Swedish Monarch. If an astrologer predicted that John Smith would become leader of the labour party in 1992, but made no comment related to his sudden death from a heart attack in 1994, does this mean that the astrologer should be subjected to scorn?

In his article, David Plant states that Lilly "had failed to foresee" the death of the Swedish monarch, and that his reputation was "dented again when he predicted that Cromwell's son Richard would succeed in establishing a strong government after Oliver's death," when in fact Richard Cromwell "was deposed within a few months of Lilly's prediction." He didn't simply predict that Richard Cromwell would become leader of a political party, but that (according to the Plant article) he would "succeed in establishing a strong government." This is what I was responding to; your note that the need for astrologers of the time to be pragmatic in sensitive political matters is well taken. And indeed, there seems to be an aphorism for every contingency.

Maurice McCann notes:

These rules can be applied to Natal astrology and I am convinced that much more knowledge of the natal chart can be gained from their application.

This seems promising, despite the advice of some astrologers to "not mix natal rules with horary rules."

Hi Maurice--

Thanks for the update regarding your findings and research in horary. Perhaps it might not stop you from occassionly drawing a self horary . I will certainly try to use horary rules of Moon aspects in Natal astrology where progression of Moon is taken into consideration.