What I thought you were saying is that if the Moon is still within orb of separating from a planet then it is not void of course even if there is no applying aspect within orb. As long as the Moon comes within orb of the next planet before it fully separates then it will not be voc.

No. Let me be clear ? to avoid the focus getting shifted onto something I don?t believe and wasn?t trying to say ? I was not saying that. Hence the reason why I said I agreed with you on that point in my first post. But you then appeared to suggest that the principle of separation wasn?t relevant, only the application; and that is where I disagreed, because if the Moon is fully separated from its previous contact before it enters a new application, then that also presents a period when the Moon is void.

Well then, could you please tell me at what point the Moon becomes void in the Presbytery chart?. Is it void the minute it begins to separate until it comes within orb of applying to Mars? Because this is the only thing that makes sense if we are to see the Moon as voc in this chart.

Yes, that?s the way that I understand it based on Lilly?s use of the principle, and the point I was making in the three quotes of mine that you picked out above.

This has certainly been a salutary lesson to check my sources properly before offering an opinion. Although even then there doesn't seem to be a consensus on this. Still there is nowhere else on the web I know of you of you could hope to find this calibre of discussion going on. Thanks to Deb and Sue especially for all your input here.

I think the penny has finally dropped on the issue of 'separated'. I obviously wasn't really taking in Sue's initial point about Lilly on this ie:

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

Here is a link to an article by Sue Ward on this issue. It has a useful description of all the charts in CA dealing with VOC Moon.

http://www.worldastrology.net/articles/voc.html

I take it Lilly's position is representative of 17th century astrologers as a whole on this? Are there differences between the 17th century and medieval view? For example I assume sources like Bonatti do not allow aspects to perfect over the sign barrier when looking at VOC?

Mark

It doesn?t describe all the charts in CA dealing with VOC Moon, but it is a very good article, worth recommending. Sue Ward deserves credit for being the first to notice that what we were all being taught about Lilly?s use of VOC was overly simplified, misleading and in need of revision. This wasn?t until 1992 when she published an article in the Horary Practitioner called ?The Void of Course Moon: An Important Discovery? - Maurice McCann followed that up with further research of his own. Sadly this came just a little too late to affect the instruction given in Olivia Barclay?s ?Horary Astrology Rediscovered? (1990) and Anthony Louis?s ?Horary Astrology? (1991), both of which were highly influential and might have helped to have given more recognition to the principle.

I think there is a consensus on this, or at least it is time that there was because the examples in CA are clear enough when you do let that ?penny drop?. But remember Mark that Lilly is saying that separation begins at 6 minutes, not that it completes at 6 minutes ? full separation requires the same distance as application, since the orb extends around the planets. I'm not sure of the relevance of that quote in this issue.

I haven?t seen enough examples from the files of earlier medieval astrologers to know how widespread this ?over sign barrier? perfection was. Dariot allowed it and I?m supposing it was quite widespread as I can?t imagine Lilly being so unconventional as to defy the tradition of his sources consistently. Unfortunately most of the earlier sources that are full of case files ? Argoli, Duret, Cardan, etc ? are not easily available and remain in need of translation.

Hello Deb,

In the current updated version of his book ( Horary Astrology: Plain and Simple) Anthony Louis does note the research of people like Sue Ward and explains that he now takes into account aspects perfecting across the sign boundary. I assume he applies this to VOC Moon too.

I have never read Lee Lehman's book on Horary ('The Martial Art of Horary') and don't know if that came out in time to pick up this issue.


Mark

Hello Deb,

Lilly is saying that separation begins at 6 minutes, not that it completes at 6 minutes ? full separation requires the same distance as application, since the orb extends around the planets. I'm not sure of the relevance of that quote in this issue

.

I thought the relevance of the quote was that it identified the point Lilly counts a planet as separated for the purposes of VOC? In other words the moment the Moon moves more than 6 minutes of arc away from a perfected aspect it can be counted as a separating aspect. If it also makes no applying aspects at this point it can be counted as VOC until/unless it makes an applying aspect in orb. This would be the case if a chart brought up a situation where an aspect was still seperating within orb or out of orb. If thats not what you mean then clearly I still haven't understood you.

This takes us back to where this started i.e. Lilly's definition of VOC:

''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.

It seems undeniable that the chart 'If Presberty shall stand?' (Christian Astrology p439) shows Lilly saw VOC operating while a seperating aspect was still in orb while other charts show him considering a VOC Moon for seperated aspects outside orb.

Philosophically and historically though what did Lilly base his idea on that separation only began to occur after 6 minutes?

I understand your view that there should be a consensus around this issue over what Lilly actually taught. However, unless Lilly experts such as yourself disseminate your knowledge in book form the ground is left open to authors using simplistic and often misleading approaches to dominate the Horary Astrology bookshelves. Skyscript is a totally fantastic resource as this thread proves. However, it cannot replace a good , solid introduction to Lilly's approach to horary. As far as I can see that book still remains to be written.

However, even if we agree what Lilly taught on VOC I am not sure we can state this is the definitive and only approach traditional astrology can adopt to the VOC Moon. It is possible the medieval approach differed on this although I accept there is no conclusive evidence on that yet. For example I am not aware of out-of-sign aspects being used before Dariot ( 16th century) unless we go back to Ibn Ezra (12th century). As you state though our knowledge is often sketchy due to important texts not being translated or authors not demonstrating points through chart examples.

Thank heavens Lilly left us his charts as well as his judgements. I wonder if it would bring a smile to his face to see people debating over the meaning of his every word over 350 years later? Or would he be sad to see the condition the art has got to?

Mark

Hi Mark

I thought the relevance of the quote was that it identified the point Lilly counts a planet as separated for the purposes of VOC? In other words the moment the Moon moves more than 6 minutes of arc away from a perfected aspect it can be counted as a separating aspect.

Not at all. I thought you must have been confused by that reference because I can?t see the relevance of it in this issue. It isn?t what Lilly meant in regard to being ?separated from a planet?. I?ll come back to what it is about later, but as I say, it is meant to define a distance at which separation begins, not when it is accomplished. To be ?separated? is to move beyond the limit of the orb. Lilly describes this in detail under his definition of separation on p.110.

Using one of his examples: Jupiter cannot be said to be totally separated or clear from the rays of Saturn until he is 9 degrees distant from him (the combination of their moieties: see http://www.skyscript.co.uk/aspectorbs.html for details). He gives another example of the Sun and Moon, saying that the Moon is separated from the Sun at 13 and a half degrees ? the moiety of the Sun?s orb (7.30?), plus the moiety of the Moon?s orb (6?).

It is past this point that an aspect is counted as separated.

This takes us back to where this started i.e. Lilly's definition of VOC:
''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.

I always used to think that if I could travel through time I?d give Lilly a piece of my mind for not making his definition clearer. But after this thread I realise how difficult it is to get readers to see the emphasis where you put it, instead of where they expect to find it. That is one of the reasons why you learn a lot more from the testimony of his charts than from this little definitions ? misunderstand one word or put the emphasis in the wrong place and the whole thing is misconstrued.

Understanding Lilly?s approach to a VOC Moon is actually very simple if you first clear your mind of what to expect. The beauty is that his examples are consistent so you can check this for yourself. First drop the reference to ?during his being in that sign? ? everyone agrees that is misleading and made redundant by the other conditions of the definition. So then Lilly is saying that a planet is VOC when it is either separated from another planet, or when it isn?t immediately applying to another planet.

In the simplest terms, there will be a period when the Moon is void when it is either fully separated from its last aspect or not yet in orb of it?s next aspect. The former is why the Moon is defined as VOC in the charts I mentioned above where it is already within orb of an applying aspect; the latter is why it is defined as VOC in the Presbytery chart.

Philosophically and historically though what did Lilly base his idea on that separation only began to occur after 6 minutes?

He was repeating older rules about the point at which the power of an aspect diminishes and is no longer in its strongest expression. Bearing in mind that the Sun and Moon are large bodies, astrologers have varied in the limits suggested ? some say 6 minutes, some say 16 minutes, and some say that they are still in ?perfection? until they are a full degree apart. I?m not sure how much of this was philosophical and how much of it was based upon the practicalities of providing a margin in case the timing or calculation was a little ?out?. I don?t believe that there is any reference to the concept as an applied principle within Lilly?s work.

even if we agree what Lilly taught on VOC I am not sure we can state this is the definitive and only approach traditional astrology can adopt to the VOC Moon. It is possible the medieval approach differed on this although I accept there is no conclusive evidence on that yet. For example I am not aware of out-of-sign aspects being used before Dariot ( 16th century) unless we go back to Ibn Ezra (12th century). As you state though our knowledge is often sketchy due to important texts not being translated or authors not demonstrating points through chart examples.

I absolutely agree. Although ?possibly because of the lack of judgements - I don?t know of any other astrologer who demonstrated the same sort of significance for a voc Moon in judgement. Yes, of course Ibn Ezra used out of sign aspect too, as did Masha?Allah : see http://www.robhand.com/recept.htm , where he considers the Moon?s aspect to Mercury and the Sun?s application to Jupiter ? both in the next sign. I?ve also just remembered that the chart forms we have from Galileo?s astrological work show him using out of sign aspects too ? see the bottom paragraph at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/galchart2.html

Thanks heavens Lilly left us his charts as well as his judgements. I wonder if it would bring a smile to his face to see people pouring over his every word over 350 years later? Or would he be sad to see the condition the art has got to?

Well he certainly engaged in active debate over the ?points of art? whilst he was alive, but I think even he would agree that this voc Moon debate is one that ?goes hardly on ?.?

First drop the reference to ?during his being in that sign? ? everyone agrees that is misleading and made redundant by the other conditions of the definition.

This is not the misleading bit. It is straightforward and clear.

However, the misleading bit is that Lilly, when he talks about separated in VOC, does not make it clear whether he is talking about separated in terms of having passsed perfection or left the orb of its perfection. Nowhere is it clear, except in his charts, that the Moon can still be VOC when not yet fully separated from its last aspect. Time and time again I have read that the Moon will not be VOC when it is still within orb of a separating aspect. This is what the article linked by MarkC seems to suggest. When a chart came up a couple of years ago I posted that it became voc when it passed perfection and was not yet within orb of the next aspect. I was told that this was not the correct interpretation and that separated was 'wholly separated'. This is where my confusion lies - because I have been told two different things. This is what I was told a couple of years ago.

the Moon can?t be classed as ?void? until it has fully separated beyond the orb of an aspect.

But this is clearly not the case. This is what I was arguing against and this is what I have always argued against.

Hello Deb,

So then Lilly is saying that a planet is VOC when it is either separated from another planet, or when it isn?t immediately applying to another planet

Ok thanks Deb for your patience! I apologise if some of my previous posts have confused anyone else. Clearly there was more than 6 degrees of separation between my understanding and what Lilly actually proposed on VOC! Now I understand you (I hope!) I wonder if a visual example might help to convey what you are saying?:

Imagine a Tennis ball with a small hole either end through which is placed a piece of string. The string extends about a meter either side of the ball. Two people hold opposite sides of the string with the ball suspended between them. If either person drops the string the ball falls to the ground. Equally, if both people drop their end of string simultaneously the ball falls.

The string is the orbs of the Moon and other planets so if it loses either a separating aspect or an applying one it loses its momentum and becomes 'void'.

Going back to Kirk's earlier suggestion we also have the image of the Moon as messenger. If the aspect fully separates the message is lost and if it doesn't apply the message is never conveyed on.

Perhaps I should create my own thread entitled VOC Moon for Dummies?
I obviously feel I would fit in well there after the experience of this thread!

In all the time I have studied astrology I don't think I have come across a concept so difficult to grasp.

Its not so much that the basic idea is complex but rather that it seems very counter-intuitive to my initial understanding of VOC. The very idea of VOC always implied moving forward in an empty (void) state which I intrinsically linked with a lack of an applying aspect. Indeed thats what all the books or definitions I have seen suggest. The idea that the Moon in an applying aspect can be VOC takes some getting used to! However, this does seem vindicated by the charts in CA.

As you mentioned earlier, people used to assume that Lilly taught aspects couldn't extend over the sign boundary until Sue Ward actually studied the charts in CA and demonstrated this simply wasn't true. I think you may be expanding our understanding of Lilly's use of Void of course in a similar way. We may not expect to see a Void of course Moon with applying aspects but the charts are there. Its our pre-conceived assumptions that make it so hard to see.

Mark

It is the presumptions that cause the problem, and I remember how hard I found it to remove the expectations that I?d been taught to have when Sue Ward first published her research.

I really don?t think that Lilly is unclear in what he means by ?separated?. His explanation on p.110 is very full and informative on that part. However I do agree with both of you that this hasn?t been properly clarified in the past. The application issue got the attention but the separation issue was left a little unclear. I tend to forget this because I sat down and worked through every one of Lilly?s charts that I could find (in CA and elsewhere) about a year and a half ago ? to check whether Lilly was being consistent or as inconsistent as was generally supposed. That brought some revision in my own understanding and I wanted to make sure that I was fully confident of what I was teaching advanced students. That is who my research was intended for, but I put into this forum what I can whenever questions are raised.

As I said, I?ll publish my full article on the site in the next set of updates. That has a very comprehensive list of points and references demonstrating the consistency of Lilly?s methods; and if there are any remaining holes in the research I?ll be happy to have them illustrated.

now that is an article I look forward to! will it get some home page recognition when you put it up or perhaps a little notice int he news section, that is one I dont want to miss. I'm at a point where I'm doing lots of nit picky fine tuning and trying to get things straightened out in my head.

Granny

Hello Deb,

I hope you manage to get this piece published externally too. Such an important issue deserves the widest distribution it can get.

Mark

Sue,

You were right, the Moon separating from a planet without applying to another planet is different from being completely unaspected. I was on a particular (and peculiar) mission of trying to discredit the concept of VoC Moon. It?s a concept that has annoyed me for the past two years, because the Voc Moon is calculated in various and conflicting ways by both ?modern? and ?traditional? astrologers. The VoC Moon is right up there with Mercury retrograde as an easy occasion for simplistic warnings, but in the case of VoC Moon the actual time period isn?t even agreed on due to the variation of ways to calculate VoC. However, my approach of trying to do away with VoC altogether was itself simplistic and a poor replacement for investigation and clarification. But I will still proceed cautiously.

It?s always risky to ?battle? with someone who knows so much more, but fortunately those are often the times when I experience a big leap in knowledge ? so, maybe we can find something else to discuss...