viola magmar wrote:I think it'd be interesting if sample charts could be posted, indicating that an apparently VOC Moon did not preclude a positive outcome.

I'll check into my archive.

v

Viola, as I think you can agree that "an apparently VOC Moon" can only be a Moon who is called VOC by all - at least by the vast majority of all - authors, the choice of your expression seems a little bit problematic.
Or is in fact the Moon in your example completely separated from another planet or his aspect (i.e. out of the half of the sum of both their orbs = the moiety of both their orbs = the moieties of both their orbs) and does she not enter into an application to another Planet or his aspect as long as she is in her present sign?
After all we know in practice there is only very little room for the Moon to be called VOC by all defintitions of VOC we know.

I really hope that your searching for your example is not in vain because your repeated announcement of this example in different fora has greatly exited my interest to see it actually.

Let's hope your enterprise is not under some Star VOC !

Johannes

I wrote an article recently where I tried to summarize the different definitions of void of course:

http://theastrologydictionary.com/v/void-of-course/

At this point it looks like there are three separate definitions, although one of the definitions is somewhat contentious because it relies on an interpretation of Lilly's chart examples. It seems like a lot of people who follow Lilly's work use this third definition of void of course though, and so I'm surprised that I haven't seen it discussed more frequently.

Hopefully that article should clarify the different definitions though.

Johannes,

I agree that too often I give for granted that people are quick minded. I referred to different ways students and astrologers interpret whether Moon is VOC, according to their own approach to the subject, there being different ways to get to the much-discussed point. I am one of those who are keen on research and not always comply strictly to set, traditional rules. I'll be a student for all my life and love that.

As for the blooming chart, I could bite my elbows for having lost even the tiniest reference to it. And I have so many other charts that it will take its time. In the meanwhile I am busy reviewing three/four books I have written, which must be ready for publication and that's a heavy toll on my shoulders. Hurting for sitting too long at pc.

Thank you for your attention. violaciao

.

Chris Brennan wrote:I wrote an article recently where I tried to summarize the different definitions of void of course:

http://theastrologydictionary.com/v/void-of-course/

Hello Chris

Thanks for your efforts to round up VOC definitions through the ages. I found it informative and instructive. But may I point out - with the greatest respect - that the word "separating", or "separated", does not appear in your article even once.

Lilly (CA page 112) defines VOC as, "A Planet is void of course, when he is separated from a planet...."

Now, what does separated mean here? The Sue Ward school interpret this as meaning that the faster planet is no longer within orb and so separating from the slower planet. The aspect has now gone past perfection by a number of degrees more than the moity of the orbs so that the faster planet has separated from the slower one.

This would appear to be a crucial and critical difference to what you wrote.

I should add that this definition of Lilly's is echoed without dissension by every other 17th century English author that I have read, so it was not a definition that was peculiar to Lilly.

Geoffrey

Chris Brennan wrote:I wrote an article recently where I tried to summarize the different definitions of void of course:

http://theastrologydictionary.com/v/void-of-course/

At this point it looks like there are three separate definitions, although one of the definitions is somewhat contentious because it relies on an interpretation of Lilly's chart examples. It seems like a lot of people who follow Lilly's work use this third definition of void of course though, and so I'm surprised that I haven't seen it discussed more frequently.

Hopefully that article should clarify the different definitions though.

Thanks a lot for this clear and short aricle, Chris.

I always thought, sign borders were the holy cows in hellenistic astrology.
The third definition does not rely on the interpretion of Lilly's chart examples: it relies on his own clear defintion, wording "application" instead of perfection, as others do. The examples only support then his definition.

Johannes

Geoffrey wrote: Now, what does separated mean here? The Sue Ward school interpret this as meaning that the faster planet is no longer within orb and so separating from the slower planet. The aspect has now gone past perfection by a number of degrees more than the moity of the orbs so that the faster planet has separated from the slower one.

This would appear to be a crucial and critical difference to what you wrote.

I should add that this definition of Lilly's is echoed without dissension by every other 17th century English author that I have read, so it was not a definition that was peculiar to Lilly.

Ah, interesting! Thanks for pointing that out. I may have overlooked that facet of this interpretation of the definition, as I was under the impression that it was still primarily about applying aspects. I will need to go back and retool my writeup in order to add this point.

johannes susato wrote: The third definition does not rely on the interpretion of Lilly's chart examples: it relies on his own clear defintion, wording "application" instead of perfection, as others do. The examples only support then his definition.

That is a good point, although I would point out that when Lilly defines void of course, his definition is pretty similar to many of the earlier Medieval definitions. But then, most Medievalists (e.g. Zoller, Dykes) interpret the Medieval definition as being more in line with the modern definition, where there is no perfection before the planet leaves the sign. The big difference with Lilly is that there are several chart examples where one can test the hypothesis, and it is these chart examples which seem to become the deciding factor. Without the chart examples I could see this as being a much more hotly contested argument.

Does anyone know which contemporary traditional astrologers use Ward's interpretation of void of course, versus which use something closer to the modern definition? I'm particularly interested in people who draw heavily on Lilly, and how many of them use this approach in practice.

Well spotted but increases the confusion.

So, if the faster planet(moon apparently is the fastest) is still within the moiety of orbs but beyond 17 minutes then the MOON VOC does not apply yet ?

Moon 10 degree virgo.
Saturn 9 degree taurus.
Next planet 4 degrees libra.

or a partile aspect is presumed.

But Lilly redefines Partile as three degrees.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/partile.html

"A Partile Aspect comes to pass within the difference of three degrees".

Once you mix this much art and that much of discretion there is no exactitude left for a Definition in astrology

PD

By way of illustration of my earlier post, I offer this chart below.

Is the Moon void of course in this chart?
In contrast to Lilly, Coley did not use different example charts to illustrate an interpretation for particular questions associated with each house in turn. Coley used a single generic chart to illustrate how each question may answered.

Now, Coley was a school teacher. I suspect that this chart was chosen precisely because the Moon is near the end of a sign and applied to nothing before it leaves the sign.

Is the Moon void of course....? I think Coley would have mentioned it if he thought it was.

The point is that Coley was Lilly's student, friend, and chosen apostle. Coley had the opportunity to learn and argue about VOC with the man himself. All we can do is read what Lilly wrote. Coley's definition of VOC is exactly the same as Lilly's, but Coley did not think that the Moon in the chart above was VOC. Coley states that the moon was still separating from Saturn, but had separated from Mars.

Geoffrey

I'm in the process of looking into this, and one question that has come up for me is what Lilly's definition of "separation" is. Are we sure that Lilly used the term "separation" in his definition of void of course to mean 'no longer within orb'? In book 1 he defines separation as occurring once the two planets have moved past the exact aspect by 6 minutes. But I suppose that the purpose of the example chart from Coley above is to argue that they were both using the orb-based version of separation within the context of the void of course definition, right Geoffrey? Can this be confirmed in Lilly's examples as well?

Geoffrey wrote:By way of illustration of my earlier post, I offer this chart below.

Is the Moon void of course in this chart?

In contrast to Lilly, Coley did not use different example charts to illustrate an interpretation for particular questions associated with each house in turn. Coley used a single generic chart to illustrate how each question may answered.

Now, Coley was a school teacher. I suspect that this chart was chosen precisely because the Moon is near the end of a sign and applied to nothing before it leaves the sign.

Is the Moon void of course....? I think Coley would have mentioned it if he thought it was.

The point is that Coley was Lilly's student, friend, and chosen apostle. Coley had the opportunity to learn and argue about VOC with the man himself. All we can do is read what Lilly wrote. Coley's definition of VOC is exactly the same as Lilly's, but Coley did not think that the Moon in the chart above was VOC. Coley states that the moon was still separating from Saturn, but had separated from Mars.

Geoffrey

Looks like Coley is using the three degree partile rule here.
Moon is within three degrees of Saturn.

Isn't Coley the chap for whom Lilly wrote the preface of the textbook.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/clavis.html

So far,
1.Within moiety of orbs.
2. Three degree partile rule.
3.No sign boundaries ? Moon does not apply to any other planet within the moiety of orbs in the next sign as well.

So this chart is a confirmation of the Partile rule but not of not minding the sign boundaries.

Coley, though does write that he follows the sign boundaries:

Void of Course is only thus, when a Planet separates from the Body or
Aspect of another, and applies to no other Planet, whilst he is in that Sign.
[This happens oftenest ... [Lun.] by reason of her swift motion.]

This still does not rule out the assumption that Moon would not be void if there were a planet within the moity of orbs in the next sign.

PD

Correction:
------------

Coley's partile is exact and Platick is within moiety of orbs.(no 3 degree rule here)

OF THE ORBS OF THE PLANETS ASPECTS.
An Aspect of a Planet is either platique or partile[;] a partile Aspect is when
two Planets behold each other directly to the same degree and minute; as
suppose ? 10d. 20m. in ?, and ? 10d. 20m. in ?, this is a partile ?
Aspect; now a platique Aspect is when two Planets behold each other
within the moiety of their Orbs.

Chris Brennan wrote:In book 1 he defines separation as occurring once the two planets have moved past the exact aspect by 6 minutes.

Hello Chris

I take this to mean that the aspect is no longer exact and separation starts when the faster planet has moved 6 minutes past the partile aspect to the slower. After all, a six minute uncertainty in the position of the planets - particularly the Moon - was not uncommon and the ephemerides could not be relied on to be accurate to the nearest second-of-arc as they can today. With that in mind, I don't see any conflict on the basis that Lilly and Coley were using to define "separation" for VOC.

Can this be confirmed in Lilly's examples as well?

Without trawling through every example to check, I cannot recall a Lilly example, but if there is one I am sure somebody can give it to us....?

You asked earlier,

Does anyone know which contemporary traditional astrologers use Ward's interpretation of void of course, versus which use something closer to the modern definition? I'm particularly interested in people who draw heavily on Lilly, and how many of them use this approach in practice.

I think that from Deborah Houlding's own piece on VOC on this website it is evident that she follows the Sue Ward school of thought. Lee Lehman differs in that she considers the Moon is VOC if it makes no Ptolemaic aspects until it leaves the sign it is in. To illustrate this, see the chart "If Presbytery shall stand?" (CA page 439) We see the Moon in 13 degrees of Libra, separating from an opposition to Venus at 9 degrees of Aries. (four degrees away...) In consequence, Lilly does not consider the Moon to be VOC, but he states (page 440) that the Moon then goes "vacua cursus" before applying in square to Mars at 25 degrees of Aries. Lee Lehman would say that since the Moon will apply to Mars before it leaves Libra, it will not become VOC until it comes within aspect of its square to Mars. Sue Ward et al follow Lilly.

Regards

Geoffrey