Skyscript Astrology Forum

MarkC wrote:I was necessarily oversimplifying Maurice McCann?s position. In addition please, understand I was relating the views of Maurice McCann not my own.

Hi Mark,
No problem at all. In the first instance I thought it referred to the ?psycho babble? of many moderns, but it was rather focused on the technical side. I misinterpreted the word ?aspects? as ?points of view? rather than the astrological aspects. I can handle criticism on Kepler. I'm not a 'Kepler groupie' (or any other astrologer's) and I also have my serious doubts about some of Kepler's findings. In another thread I learned that Kepler was criticized by Morin for using a sort of 'solar arc' directions and I totally agree with that.

In an interview with Maurice McCann http://www.skyscript.co.uk/mccann.html some of his points get more clear to me. Unfortunately I didn't have enough time to read it thoroughly, and I barely know anything about horary. A discussion would indeed lead too much off thread over here but please do feel free to qoute the book. I'm rather curious about McCann's thoughts. On the other hand, please don't feel obliged to spend too much time on typing long quotes from the book.

In short I can say that I have my serious doubts if the (bi)quintiles work, not to mention the subdivisions of these. Perhaps the 45?/135? should be considered in some cases. The septiles, noviles etc. where rejected by Kepler and I do likewise. I don?t know what Kepler used as orbs but I too believe that the orb varies per planet and probably also per situation of that planet in combination with the type of aspect. It perhaps might turn out that for a great deal I would agree with Mc Canns ideas.

Tom wrote:Huntsville (probably Alabama; I have no idea why he chose that.

Could it have been Huntsville, Illinois to cover a large area around Chicago and/or for interpolating and extrapolating for other locations in Illinois?

Could it have been Huntsville, Illinois to cover a large area around Chicago and/or for interpolating and extrapolating for other locations in Illinois?

No, I checked further. He gives the latitude of 34 N 44 and that's Huntsville, Alabama.

In particular Chaney gives an example chart in page 20 of his Primer of Astrology (1890) which demonstrated a separating square and an applying quintle, all within moeities.

I can't find this. My page 20 is in the preface and he is ranting against Raphael. This text is a collection of magazine essays and articles, perhaps expanded for this purpose. If McCann was reading from an original magazine article that was incorporated into the Primer, it may well have been on a page 20 that was renumbered for the publication of the book.

I did find something similar on page 63 where he discusses how, with the very wide orbs recommended by his predecessors a square could be read as a trine or vice-versa allowing for out of sign aspects as well. I'll look for other references to aspects in the text.

He does seem to be an original thinker and he rejects, for transits anyway, some of the traditional meanings of the houses. There are other more troubling remarks in his work. I've spotted two places where he states that the horizon is always 90 degrees from the midheaven. If he means MC when he says "midheaven," he is flat out wrong. The horizon is always 90 degrees from the zenith not the MC. He may be using the terms interchangeably and perhaps 100 years ago this was acceptable, but today it isn't. The midheaven is usually used as a synonym for the MC and his "90-degree rule" doesn't hold.

Another remark he made doesn't work in practice either. He said if we divide a circle into 12 parts at least one of the parts has to be 30 degrees. No it doesn't. This, like the remark above, is strange for a professor of mathematics.

I'll let you know what I find out about his ideas of aspects when I come across them. The damn book is very small (6" by 4 1/2") and the type is small and I have to use a magnifying glass to read it comfortably. I can read it without help but not easily. My son thinks that's pretty funny.

Tom

Tom wrote:I've spotted two places where he states that the horizon is always 90 degrees from the midheaven. If he means MC when he says "midheaven," he is flat out wrong.

... unless he is talking about degrees of right ascension?

Martin Gansten wrote:

Tom wrote:I've spotted two places where he states that the horizon is always 90 degrees from the midheaven. If he means MC when he says "midheaven," he is flat out wrong.

... unless he is talking about degrees of right ascension?

Or from the perspective of quadrants based upon horizon and meridian as seen from the north.

Another remark he made doesn't work in practice either. He said if we divide a circle into 12 parts at least one of the parts has to be 30 degrees. No it doesn't. This, like the remark above, is strange for a professor of mathematics.

Sometimes these intelligent people who know a lot assume that everyone understands what he means, they don't know how to communicate this to people with less understanding. This text could perhaps be interpreted as when you make a house system, at least this should contain a division in 30? somewhere. Campanus for example requires a division of the prime vertical in parts of 30?. Then it is projected on the ecliptic through great circles. Regiomontanus divides the equator in 30? parts and via the prime vertical project on the ecliptic through great circles. Placidus uses equal proportions of diurnal/nocturnal arcs which are then 'expressed' in degrees of 30? each. In fact every house system is based upon some equal division, it's the projection on the ecliptic that makes them 'unequal'.

unless he is talking about degrees of right ascension?

He may have been thinking it, but he didn't write it that way.

Or from the perspective of quadrants based upon horizon and meridian as seen from the north.

He specifically calls the 10th house cusp the "midheaven." He doesn't use whole sign houses.

Tom

He may have been thinking it, but he didn't write it that way.

I ought to add that Chaney is not the best writer. His style is much like his contemporaries (a bit self-righteous, treats anecdotes as proof, quick with the insults), but he can be a bit disjointed at times, and that may explain why he didn't clarify some of his statements. Being a math professor, he may also have unconsciously assumed some knowledge of astronomy or spherical geometry on the part of his students

Tom

Does he have children? As far as I can see, there is only one possible indication of perhaps one child. The 5th is Aquarius giving few children and its ruler is in its fall but angular in a barren sign. There are no planets indicating children in the 11th or 10th and those indicating children, like Jupiter and the Moon are in cadent places. However one planet again stands out as a possibility, and that is Mercury (significator of children) which is joined and received by the lord of the 5th and is joined to the lord of the Ascendant by antiscia. Maybe one child; a Mercurial child?

I was re-reading the thread when I remembered this post of Steven. If Jack London were a writer (Mercury) there is an Astrological evidence - albeit feebly - that he is Chaney legitimate son, as Mercury is the only significator of children in the chart.