when the moon is void of course, does it mean "the answer is a no" or does it mean "this chart cannot be read". I've heard both and recently drew a chart with a *very* VOC moon (29.5 degrees aries). would like to give the querent the right answer.

I'll give my standard answer... you have to take each chart individually.

I've seen charts where the Moon is Void and where there is an applying sextile or trine with reception between the significators, so you can't say there's a clear no in the chart.

A Moon or any significator that is so close to a sign boundary can show that change is in the air, that the end of one phase and the beginning of a new one is about to happen. In that case I'd look at the Moon's essential dignity and see if it gets better or worse with the change. Sometimes I've seen a Moon right at the end of a sign, a late rising sign and a main significator about to switch signs. It's when you have a few signs of the same thing - in this case a change - that the answer is clear. If the Moon alone is late in a sign I wouldn't use that on its own as meaning that big changes are happening. Again, I'd have to see the whole chart.

I've seen other charts where you have a late Moon and a very early rising sign and maybe also a main significator that is either very late or very early in a sign. With so many signs of change it's hard to rely on such a chart so I'd say that the whole situation is in flux and that it could go anywhere. So in a sense you throw out the chart, but not really. To say that the situation is in flux and that things are not solidly on one path is a reading, and a very powerful reading of the chart. But when I've seen charts like that I don't spend a lot of time figuring out what the details of it mean - things like house position, dispositors, accidental dignity - because the situation is not fixed and all of what is shown can and probably will change. Yet the main message, the headline of the chart is clear - that things will not be the same soon. In these cases I would feel confident to advise the person to wait for the changes to occur, to wait for something big and important to happen and then to ask again. I don't usually like to ask the same question over again, but this is one case where that's the best course. What you don't want to do is to ask the same question over again until you get the answer you want. You have to respect a chart or else it won't respect you, i.e., you won't get a clear answer.

I can't emphasize this enough, that it's only these charts with multiple and very clear signs of change that it's safe to set aside the chart and wait until another time.

Another meaning of a Moon that is late in the sign is that not a lot will happen, that what's happened so far is pretty much all that will happen. Sometimes you'll see just the opposite where the Moon moves from one sextile to another square to an opposition and finally to be conjunct some planet. That shows a path that is filled with a lot of events, good and bad.

And like you said, a Void Moon can also show that there's nothing left to be done by you, that you have no power to influence the outcome of the situation.

Do you have a chart in mind or is this a general question?

Hello Virgolass,

Before attempting to answer your question perhaps you need to ask another one..when is the Moon actually void of course? In particular, I would question your assumption that you have a '*very* VOC moon at (29.5 degrees aries)''. Of course, I have not seen your chart. However, there is no reason to automatically assume the Moon in this position is void of course.

According to Lilly:

''A Planet is voyd of course, when he is seperated from a Planet, nor doth forthwith, during his being in that Sign, apply to any other: This is most usually in the Moon; in judgements doe you carefully observe whether she be voyd of course yea or no; you shall seldome see a businesse goe handsomely forward when she is so." (Christian Astrology p112)

I suggest you check out this useful article by Jonathon Clark:

http://www.jornal-astrologia.com/article_clark.htm


According to Lilly for a void of course Moon to occur it needs to be neither separating from or applying to another planet ,within orb, before leaving the sign. If it is still within the orb of a separating aspect or within the orb of an applying aspect ( even if it doesn't perfect until it crosses the sign boundary) it is not void of course.

To give an example if the Moon was at 29'59 Aries and made no applying aspects it is not void of course if it is still within the combined orb ( moeity) of a separating aspect. Equally, if the Moon was at 29'59 Aries and was in an applying sextile with the Sun at 7 Cancer it would also not be void of course because the moeity of the planets would be in orb. This aspect would not perfect until the Moon had crossed the sign barrier well into Taurus but according to Lilly this doesn't matter if the planets are in orb.

The research of astrologers like Sue Ward and Maurice McCann has demonstrated convincingly that this was the way the void of course Moon was understood and taught by Lilly and the other seventeenth century astrologers. I would recommend anyone wanting to explore this subject further to read Maurice McCann's book : 'The Void of Course Moon'.

Its important to be aware that the Moon can also be 'void' anywhere in a sign if it is not separating or applying from/to any other planets within orb.

Here is a bit of a post from Deb recently from a thread on orbs that explains this further:

''....orbs represent the limits by which the planets are able to impress the ?force of their bodies? upon each other, or transfer influences from one to another. So the Moon is never void (empty of influence) whilst it is within orb of a contact. This is because the Moon, the most inferior planet and the most impressionable one, takes the influence of the planets it is in contact with, and bears the main responsibility for translating influences from one planet to another. So the Moon is never void unless out of orb; but it can be void in the middle of the sign if it is not within orb of an aspect - even if it will later perfect an aspect at the end of the sign (see for example, CA p.439).

For a very useful discussion on the traditional moeity/orbs of the planets take a look at this article by Deb:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspects.html

I think a lot of horary students may be getting confused in this area due to the influence of John Frawley's Horary Textbook. I don't want to re-open that whole discussion again but it is very relevant to this topic. As was noted in another thread John Frawley's approach is significantly different because he has abandoned the approach used by Lilly ie use of orbs in Horary. As a consequence, he solely focuses on the Moon not perfecting an aspect before leaving a sign as indication of the Moon being void of course. In traditional terms however, discussing concepts such as void of course or translation of light without orbs is not possible.

As a consideration before judgement a void of course Moon is frequently a negative indicator regarding the outcome of a question. As both a co-significator of the querent and a general barometer of the flow of events in a horary the Moon is a vital factor in any judgement. Still, there are questions where a void of course Moon might not be so straightforward to judge. For example in a health horary if asking if someone's health or medical tests will turn out ok it could be an indicator that nothing much will happen i.e. a positive outcome for the querent. As always you need to take the chart as a whole into account and the nature of the question being asked.

As for whether the chart can be read or not I would say yes. However, the void of course Moon will obviously influence your judgement heavily. Just as would the querent's significator combust the Sun. If we go back to the original source of considerations before judgement-the medieval astrologer Guido Bonatti- research by the traditional astrologer Maurice McCann indicates Bonatti never intended such charts to be discarded automatically.

http://cura.free.fr/decem/08mccann.html

Note the term is considerations before judgement not cancellation of it. This issue has been confused by the modern horary astrologer Barbara Watters who popularised the idea of 'Strictures before judgement'. She took the traditional considerations and made these hard and fast 'rules' against judgement of a horary chart. On this basis many charts would not be judged. However, most horary astrologers wouldn't go this far.

Mark

I am not really sure I agree with this judgement of VOC Moon. VOC means that it has nowhere to go. Cursus in Latin means forward movement or line of advance. Vacua, of course, means empty. So a VOC Moon is empty of forward movement. It is the future movement that is the concern here. If it has separated from a planet (Lilly classifies a separating planet as one that is six minutes past perfection) and has yet to find another contact it is empty of direction. This is not to say that the Moon is not still having an effect on the planet from which it separates but it is not yet able to determine future direction of the question asked. It is void of the ability to influence the future.

In the chart 'If Presberty shall stand?' that Deb has referred to, I find what Lilly has to say somewhat confusing. He says

'We have the Moon separating from Venus in the eighth, then going to be Vacua Cursus (VOC), afterwards she squares with Mars, then with Jupiter.'

However, if we use the theory that the Moon cannot be VOC if it is still within orb of a separating aspect then the Moon does not become VOC at all in this chart. Venus is at 9 deg of Aries. The Moon is at 13 deg of Libra. The Moon is separating from an opposition to Venus. However, while this opposition is still within orb of separating, Mars, which is at 25 deg Cancer will already be within orb of an applying square with the Moon. In fact, the Moon is already about 2 deg, maybe 3 from being within orb of a square to Mars. Meanwhile, it will have only separated about 6 or 7 deg from Venus, not enough to be out of orb.

I agree completely about allowing for aspects to cross sign boundaries when determining VOC Moon and it is clear to anyone who has studied CA that this is how he uses them.

I have been thinking about this some more and it appears to me that the issue of confusion concerning whether to allow for separating aspects to be considered centres around what Lilly meant by separated. To add to the confusion he does not make it clear what exactly he means. He does not say 'wholly separated' but simply separated. In his definition of 'separation in CA he says

Separation, it is in the first place, when two Planets are departed but six minutes distance from each other...

He goes on to say that a planet cannot be said to be totally separated or clear until he has got beyond the orb of another planet. Now, when it comes to normal aspects in a chart, I agree that separating aspects still have some influence while they are within orb. But I believe that VOC is a separate issue.

The definition of Vacua Cursus, i.e. forward movement, line of advance, or to proceed convinces me that the real meaning of VOC Moon does not really allow for separating aspects to negate the Moon being VOC. And in the chart mentioned above, the Moon will only be VOC if separating aspects are discounted and only applying aspects are considered.

We need to look at the Moon?s role in astrology. The Moon has been given the role of container and vessel. If we consider the function given to the Moon as a container, as a body that gathers power and influence and then transfers it to the other planets, then the necessity of being completely out of orb from any other planet makes sense for true VoC. If the Moon has separated from an aspect by 10 minutes of longitude then the Moon is still full of that planet?s influence. That would be a contented Moon, able to perform the duty she has been assigned. If there is no applying aspect within orb she may not yet be able to transfer that planet?s influence to another body, but she still is able to perform her duty as holder and container. But if the Moon separates and passes out of orb with still no body to transfer to then that would be a frustrated and unfulfilled Moon, denied her proper role.

It?s not a matter of how much separation from the other bodies, but rather whether the Moon has any contact with other bodies or is left on her own. No aspect contact means standing alone. Think of the role of Mother assigned to the Moon ? there is some useful astrological insight to be had.

Being completely out of orb from any aspect makes the VoC Moon much less common and therefore possibly more meaningful.

Hello Sue,

Well lets start off where we agree. The Moon moving forward in a sign is not void of course if it is in an applying aspect within orb. As you state this is the way Lilly approaches VOC Moon in Christian Astrology.

On the issue of separation and VOC Lilly seems to imply that when a planet has no previous aspects within orb it it is 'separated' from the influence of those planets.

''A Planet is voyd of course, when he is seperated from a Planet'

To me thats implies fully separated from a planet by orb. I take it you think he is referring to all previous aspects i.e. separating and separated aspects.

I accept the focus of a VOC Moon is undeniably its forward movement as you state. However, surely the crucial factor is whether the Moon is actually 'void' ie outside the orb of any planet before it leaves a sign? However, I see your point. You are arguing for an exclusive focus on applying aspects.

I am not dogmatic about this. I would welcome the input of a Lilly expert like Deb or Maurice McCann here to give their view. If I have got this point wrong it will be very instructive in clarifying this issue for people reading this thread.

If Lilly is unclear on this issue, as you suggest, we need to reach a consensus based on what the tradition says about this issue as a whole.


Mark

As I said, I believe that the issue centres around the interpretation of Lilly's use of separated when he is speaking of VOC. I may well be in the minority here but I believe that he is describing a situation where a planet has passed perfection and does not yet aspect another planet. In the same chart mentioned above, Lilly says that 'Mercury is separated and separateth apace from Saturn'. This means, according to Deb's footnote, that Mercury's motion is particularly quick and so the aspect is separating speedily. However, the point here is that Mercury is only 5 deg separated from Saturn. It is clearly not out of the orb of the aspect yet Lilly describes it as separated.

Further on, Lilly says that the Moon, after a little being void of course, runs hastily to the square of Mars and Jupiter. Deb's footnote says that the Moon is out of moiety of an applying aspect until it reachers 15 deg Libra, where it falls within the 10 deg orb of the square to Mars. However, at 15 deg Libra, it is still within orb of separating from its opposition to Venus. If we take into consideration separating aspects and their orbs then this Moon is not void of course and will not be at any point. It is only void of course if we consider that separated means that it has passed the point of perfection.

If the Moon as Mother didn?t work as a fertile image, then let?s stick with the Moon as Messenger.

"She is the most powerfull in operation of all the other planets on Elementary bodies by reason of her proximity to us and her swiftness, by which she transfers the light and influence of all Superiours to us, by configuration with them."
Ramesey, Astrology Restored

Ramesey compared the Sun to 'an Emperor amongst the stars'. In practical interpretation though, the Moon was a more direct and immediate influence. If the Sun was an emperor, the Moon was his standard bearer, or 'an Ambassador, Messenger &c. to do his business'.

[From David Plant?s ?The Sublunar Sphere?, http://www.skyscript.co.uk/sublunar.html]

If the Moon has separated by 10 minutes of longitude from an aspect she is still within orb of aspect to the other planet and is therefore still carrying that planet?s ?message?. If she is not within orb of an applying aspect she has no one to pass the message on to, but at least she still has a message to carry. But once she passes completely out of orb from the separating aspect she has lost the message and has nothing to pass on to anyone. The poor little thing is quite Void of Course. She is an ambassador and messenger without a job.

Considering sign boundaries as a factor seems pretty weak. The strongest approach is in focusing on the Moon as the ?go-between? of the planets, and whether it currently is within orb of contact with any of those planets. Obviously I?m not paying much attention to what Lilly did or didn?t say on the subject. My interest here is in the traditional concept of planetary contact throught the use of orb and moiety.

Well, I just got one of those charts that I mentioned above.

The situation is that after having my best year so far for my business, a company that I depended on for a lot of work in the fall, well? in a word they screwed me over. That sent me scrambling for a lot of new clients and I?ve come up with a lot of leads and some real work. I have a very important meeting coming up this Thursday with a group that could provide me with a lot of work in the future. And I?m also thinking about changing the course of my work by incorporating my own company instead of working freelance. My question was a general one about my business prospects for the future and about this meeting that?s coming up later this week and how should I handle it.

The chart info is October 9, 2006, 8:39 PM in Falls Church, VA. That chart has 00? 33? Gemini rising, and it?s radical as it?s a Mercury hour.

This is one of those charts where there are two clear signs of change in the air, the first being the extremely early ASC and also the void of course Moon.

There are a lot of signs relating to my business in the chart. I am Mercury, my business partners are the 7th house ruler Jupiter, as is their money. My finances are the 2nd house ruler Mercury. There is an applying aspect between Mercury and Jupiter, and nothing will prohibit it. It is a bit far from perfection though.

The Moon is very strong in her own sign but is conjunct that darn Algol. It has just separated from a square with Saturn. Saturn rules the 9th and 10th houses. I work freelance for myself, so I don?t really have a boss, but I do have a career and that?s how I see the 10th house in my work charts. I?d use the 10th for my business life in general, and the 7th house for my particular clients. The Moon?s most recent aspects have been an opposition to Jupiter (a particular business client) and that square with Saturn, my career in general. So that?s pretty descriptive. I had a bit of nastiness, a show down really, with one particular client and that lead to some difficulties with my career as a whole.

But I have to say that besides being descriptive of the past, there are too many signs of a developing or changing situation to really rely on the chart that much. The ASC is incredibly early and the Moon is about to change signs. If the ASC was later but the Moon was still void, I?d look more closely at the chart. Or if it were the opposite, if the ASC was still early but the Moon was not void, I?d still use this chart. But taken together, I?d say that this shows that my career is in a transition, which it very much is, but that the situation has not yet crystallized. So I?m not putting too much weight on the applying aspect between Mercury and Jupiter, the presence of Saturn over that upcoming aspect (when they meet, there are both in a partile square with Saturn), or the fact that Mercury prohibits the square between Jupiter and Saturn. Though these are things to watch out for, because of the signs that the situation is in transition, I?m not taking these things as seriously as I might have otherwise.

The other odd thing about this is that I have the void Moon, which implies that there?s nothing more to be done, and my main significators in an applying aspect, which implies just the opposite, that something big is in the offing.

Any one else have an opinion on this?

I think an essential point is being missed, or rather confused. People seem to be arguing for the validity of the Moon's separating aspects. The issue for me is not that the separating aspect from the Moon is unimportant. Of course it is important. The comments about voc Moon and whether they relate to separating aspects somehow seems to have become an either/or issue. It seems that those who deny separating aspects in voc are being accused of discounting separating aspects altogether. They are two separate issues. You can consider the last aspect the Moon makes and then still consider the Moon voc leaving out the separating aspect. I am arguing that voc Moon is voc even if the Moon is still within orb of separating from its aspect. I am not arguing that the separating aspect of the Moon means nothing and that there is no information to be gained by it. I take a lot of notice of the last aspects the Moon makes. What I am saying is that separating aspects of the Moon do not come into voc Moon because the Moon is looking to go forward but has nowhere to carry its forward influence because it will not meet another planet. The translation of the Latin phrase Vacua Cursus makes it clear that it is an issue of forward movement.

It is very clear with all authors that they consider the Moon to be voc when it has separated from an aspect and will not make another aspect before it leaves the sign it is in. This point is not at issue. However, what is at issue is what constitutes a separated aspect. Is it one that has passed perfection or is it one that is out of the orb of being separated? Most people have taken it to mean the latter on the basis that the aspect is still valid as long as it is within orb. However, I think this misses the point. The aspect may still be valid but the future direction of the Moon is aimless. Two different issues. I wouldn't say that other authors are much better at being definitive in their explanation but the way I read these two authors is that they are discounting separating aspects when considering voc. First Dariot:

Void or without course or motion is when one planet separating himself from another doth not apply to any other during the time that he tarryeth in that sign and then he is said to have his course and motion void.

The emphasis is mine. The fact that he says separating rather than separated suggests to me that the aspect can still be separating.

And Bonatus:

After one planet has been joined to another, and their joining together has been completed and after that perfection has been completed such that one of them has separated from the other, and after the sparation the planet is joined to no other planet, it is called Void in Course because it then remains alone.

The emphasis, again, is mine.

Hello Sue,

I did try to post a reply last night but it hasn't appeared. I will have another go when I have more time.

In the chart 'If Presberty shall stand?' that Deb has referred to, I find what Lilly has to say somewhat confusing. He says

Quote:
'We have the Moon separating from Venus in the eighth, then going to be Vacua Cursus (VOC), afterwards she squares with Mars, then with Jupiter.'

However, if we use the theory that the Moon cannot be VOC if it is still within orb of a separating aspect then the Moon does not become VOC at all in this chart. Venus is at 9 deg of Aries. The Moon is at 13 deg of Libra. The Moon is separating from an opposition to Venus. However, while this opposition is still within orb of separating, Mars, which is at 25 deg Cancer will already be within orb of an applying square with the Moon. In fact, the Moon is already about 2 deg, maybe 3 from being within orb of a square to Mars. Meanwhile, it will have only separated about 6 or 7 deg from Venus, not enough to be out of orb.

I accept your calculation of orbs here doesn't seem to support what I am saying. However, the chart also seems to throw up problems for your interpretation too.

Most importantly why doesn't Lilly just state the Moon is VOC at the outset? Surely on your interpretation that is the position? Instead he implies it is something in the future tense after it separates from Venus.

I agree though this is quite a confusing chart. It seems to me three things are possibly going on to explain this:

1 Lilly is just expressing what he means very poorly.
2 The chart data is out
3 Lilly has miscalculated and either that the Moon is VOC from the outset or he missed that it doesn't actually become VOC after separating from Venus.

I have found two charts in Christian Astrology where Lilly explicitly states that the Moon is VOC at the outset. In both cases the Moon is outside orb of its separating aspects. I will post these up later.

Mark