Skyscript Astrology Forum

pankajdubey wrote: 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.

An example to look at here is "If his Excellency Robert, Earl of Essex, should take Reading..." (CA page 401). We see the Moon at 27 degrees of Leo is within 8 degrees of a sextile to Mars in Cancer. The moity of the orbs is 9.5 degrees, so we are within aspect. But is the Moon void of course?

I think Lilly is stating that the Moon is VOC. On the chart are the words "A vac" indicating that the Moon is VOC. And at the bottom of the page he says that, ".....the Moon separated (a vacuo)..." from a trine to Jupiter at 9 degrees of Aries. This is despite the fact that he goes on to say that the Moon, "applyed to a sextile of Mars...", which it does as demonstrated above.

I would welcome the views of others on this.

Geoffrey

Geoffrey wrote:

pankajdubey wrote: 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.

An example to look at here is "If his Excellency Robert, Earl of Essex, should take Reading..." (CA page 401). We see the Moon at 27 degrees of Leo is within 8 degrees of a sextile to Mars in Cancer. The moity of the orbs is 9.5 degrees, so we are within aspect. But is the Moon void of course?

I think Lilly is stating that the Moon is VOC. On the chart are the words "A vac" indicating that the Moon is VOC. And at the bottom of the page he says that, ".....the Moon separated (a vacuo)..." from a trine to Jupiter at 9 degrees of Aries. This is despite the fact that he goes on to say that the Moon, "applyed to a sextile of Mars...", which it does as demonstrated above.

I would welcome the views of others on this.

Geoffrey

The problem is in the bold faced ones.
My Latin is as good as my Sanskrit but Sue Ward gives a vac as not is but was void of course.(i.e Moon is seperating from a previous void and now applying to another planet-hence not void)

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sueward/a ... 0lilly.htm

And yes, the Moon was void of course(after its application to Jupiter in 9 degree Aries) and now moving to sextile of Mars.

Don't blame me if that is not what Sue Ward meant in english.She actually call it a good example of what she is trying to explain.

Figure E: This is a good example, because Lilly has noted the Moon?s progress as "a vac [from void of course] ad opposition Sun [to the opposition of the Sun]". The Moon?s last aspect was an opposition with Mercury over 12? before. The Moon has a moiety of around 6? and Mercury has a moiety of 3.5?, therefore at about 9? or 10? before, they were in aspect. Since then the Moon has been within the orbs of no other planet and so was void of course. The Moon is at 28?09? Sagittarius and the Sun is at 5?31? Cancer, so the Moon is applying to the opposition of the Sun.

and for Robert Earl of Essex:

Lilly states again that the Moon is separating from void of course, but in this case its application is to a sextile of Mars. The Moon?s last aspect was by trine to Jupiter, but that was more than 17.5? before and their combined moieties are about 11?. The Moon is at 27?33? Leo and Mars is at 5?14? Cancer which constitutes an applying trine.

It will end up being a discussion on a , ad or ex- vacuo

PD

Chris Brennan wrote: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?

I should like to quote Lilly at length because of the importance fo the understanding of his teachings as to the 6 minutes, the application and separation: Lilly, CA, p. 110:

"Separation, it is in the first place, when two Planets are de-
parted but six minutes distances from each other, as let SA be in
10. degr. and 25. of ar and JU in 10. degr. and 25. min. of ar:
now in these degrees and minutes they are in perfect 0?; but
when JU shall get into 10. degr. and 31. or 32. minutes of ar,
he shall said to be separating from SA; yet because SA hath
9. degr. allowed him for his rayes, and JU hath also the same
number allowed him, JU cannot be said to be totally separated
or cleere from the rayes of SA, untill he hath got 9. whole de-
grees further into ar, or is fully 9. degr. distant from him,
for the halfe of JU his orbe is 4. degr. 30. min. and the halfe of
SA his orbe is 4. degr. 30. min. added together they make 9.
whole degrees; for every Planet that applies is allowed halfe
his owne orbs and halfe the orbs of that Planet from whom
he separates: As if SO and MO be in any aspect, the MO shall then
be separated from the SO, when she is fully distant from the SO
7. degr. and 30. min. viz. half the orbs or the SO, and 6. degr. the
moity of her owne orbes; in all 13. degr. and 30. minutes.
The exact knowledge hereof is various and excellent: For
admit two Planets significators in Marriage at the time of the
question, are lately separated but a few minutes; I would then
judge there had been but few dayes before great probability of
effecting the Marriage, but now it hung in suspence, and there
seemed some dislike or rupture in it; and as the significators
doe more separate, so will the matter and affection of the par-
ties more alienate and vary; and according to the number of
degrees that the swifter Planet wanteth ere he can be wholly
separated from the more ponderous, so will it be so many
weekes, dayes, moneths, or yeers ere the two Lovers will whol-
ly desist or see the matter quite broke off:"

As I wrote in another forum of this site the space of six minutes marks only the beginning of the separation.

Very interesting and important is his lapse, mingling separation and application:
"for every Planet that applies is allowed halfe
his owne orbs and halfe the orbs of that Planet from whom
he separates:"
thus giving the lacking specification of the application's definition indirectly.

Furthermore we should not forget, that in his examples (Book II) Lilly often calls a planet to be "separated", when in fact he is still "separating" or "in Separation" after Lilly's own defenition, the planets being still "within the moieties of both their orbs" and is not yet
"totally separated or cleere"
or "fully distant"
or "wholly separated"
as he formulates in his explanations and the marriage example above.

Johannes

pankajdubey wrote:
It will end up being a discussion on a , ad or ex- vacuo

No, I think you have it right. A or ex vacuo would be from vacuum. Ad vacuo would be to vacuum. If the Moon was presently void of course, I guess the expression would be in vacuo

Thanks for that

Geoffrey

Firmicus Maternus, Matheseos . . . , words:
"per vacuum currens" - running through void = being VOC.

Lilly uses:
ad vacuum = not yet void, but applying to be void
a vacuo = have been void, but not any longer now, as being in application to another planet.

johannes susato wrote:Firmicus Maternus, Matheseos . . . , words:
"per vacuum currens" - running through void = being VOC.

Lilly uses:
ad vacuum = not yet void, but applying to be void
a vacuo = have been void, but not any longer now, as being in application to another planet.

@johannes

Wouldn't that be a misnomer

Applying to no application.

PD

Chris Brennan wrote:

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.

If you read Lilly's following definition of void of course, there is simply no place for a hot contest, Lilly wording very clearly, and also as to the application, in CA, p. 112:

"A Planet is voyd of course, when he is separated from a Pla-
net, nor doth forthwith, during his being in that Signe, ap-
ply to any other: This is most usually in the MO; in judge-
ments doe you carefully observe whehter she be voyd of course
yea or no; you shall seldome see a businesse goe handsomely
forward when she is so."

This is why I said earlier that the third definition of your text does not rely on the interpretation of Lilly's chart examples but from the beginning on his own clear defintion, wording "to apply" instead of perfection, as others do, and that therefore the later examples only support and verify his definition then.

Johannes

johannes susato wrote: If you read Lilly's following definition of void of course, there is simply no place for a hot contest, Lilly wording very clearly, and also as to the application, in CA, p. 112:

"A Planet is voyd of course, when he is separated from a Pla-
net, nor doth forthwith, during his being in that Signe, ap-
ply to any other: This is most usually in the MO; in judge-
ments doe you carefully observe whehter she be voyd of course
yea or no; you shall seldome see a businesse goe handsomely
forward when she is so."

This is why I said earlier that the third definition of your text does not rely on the interpretation of Lilly's chart examples but from the beginning on his own clear defintion, wording "to apply" instead of perfection, as others do, and that therefore the later examples only support and verify his definition then.

The counterargument to this that I've seen raised is the question of why Lilly mentions the sign at all if the definition only really has to do with the orb of application (and possibly separation). Why does he add the clause "during his being in that Signe"?

I'm not really trying to argue one position or another here, but I'm just pointing out how I can see where some people would argue that there is some level of ambiguity even in this basic definition, which could lead to two different interpretations.

Or maybe I'm not understanding how the clause about being in the same sign is necessary or relevant within the context of the Ward interpretation of the definition? Is there an explanation for this?

Chris Brennan wrote: Or maybe I'm not understanding how the clause about being in the same sign is necessary or relevant within the context of the Ward interpretation of the definition? Is there an explanation for this?

I think we need to go back to the 1980s when many astrologers were disenchanted with the way that modern astrology was going. The huge effort in scientific (statistical) research into the validity of astrological principles was burying itself into the ground. The astrological world was ready for a counter-reformation.

While there were a number of astrologers who had been looking at what we now call "traditional" astrology before Olivia Barclay, my recollection of those days is that it was her simple enthusiasm, coupled with a fine mind and a thick skin that repelled any criticism like an umbrella shedding rain, that fired the starting gun on the rush back to study of traditional astrology. She shouted, "Look at this stuff, it works!" and others found that she was right!

This is important, because Olivia taught that if the Moon was not going to perfect any aspect until it exited the sign it was in, the Moon was void of course. As Johannes says, "apply" in Lilly's definition was taken to mean, "perfect". Olivia had learned about void or course from authors such as Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson and Barbara Watters, who wrote that the Moon was void of course if it "makes" no major aspect before exiting the sign it was in. Here "makes" was taken to mean "perfects" (in 17th century speak) and Olivia saw no contradiction to this interpretation when she saw Lilly use the word, "applies".

Now, many of Olivia's students went on to teach and proselytize others about the old ways and they were the vanguard of a sea-change in the astrological elite. Before Olivia, it was the scientist-astrologers who occupied the front table of speakers on the conference rounds. After Olivia, it was the historian-astrologers who took their places, many of whom had been taught by Olivia, and so used her interpretation of void of course.

Olivia had merely assumed Lilly had been 'artful' in the application of void of course in his charts, and it was not until Sue Ward looked a little deeper into the matter that what Lilly had really been saying about void of course became apparent. It was not as clear as Johannes suggests. As you rightly imply Chris, Lilly's definition is ambiguous and it is not until you examine Lilly's charts in detail that his true meaning becomes apparent.

Olivia, and others, liked Olivia's interpretation as it was clear-cut and it worked. There was a lot of argument and acrimony over the matter, but it was clear that when looking at Lilly's use of void of course in his charts - and how other 17th century astrologers were using void of course in their charts - that the Sue Ward interpretation was more in line with how 17th century astrologers thought about void of course.

The Sue Ward school of thought won the argument, but the echo of Olivia's interpretation of void of course continues to reverberate around the astrological world - as we have seen in this thread.

Geoffrey

Chris Brennan wrote: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.

I always wonder about this, because I agree that Lilly's definition is more similar to the medieval one, but I do not understand why most medieval astrologers interpret the definition as requiring perfection.

For example on Deb's void of course page:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/voc.html

Abu Mashar says:
""It is 'void of course' if a planet separates from application with a planet in conjunction or aspect, and does not apply to a planet as long as it is in its sign. "

But we do not have any mention of the planets needing to perfect, only to apply.

Ben Dykes translates it differently:
"[void of course] is if, after little disregard some star ataches to it in none of the above stated ways, but neither does it attach to any [star] whilst it is in that sign"

But I think the meaning is the same. In the header introductions to these sections Ben Dykes gives a convenient comparison in the use of wording amongst translators. Here where I have included [void of course] Ben Dykes actually uses the word "Solitude" which we see from this comparison is the word used by Hermann. John of Spain translates this word as void of course, which I've used here as we're familiar with that term. In the quote we have the notion of whether or not the Moon "attaches" to another planet and the key focus here is whether attach means perfect an aspect or just apply to an aspect (ie, enter into orb). Well we're told that this is true provided it doesn't "attach" in any of the above ways.

In the previous section, we're told of the ways it could attach.

Abbr III.14
"However, one application of longitude is in the same sign, the other in a different one. But of the one which is in different ones, one is without a regard, the other is with a regard (whether hexagonal or tetragonal or tigonal). However whichever one it was, if it reaches the one which it pursues closely, it is the end of the application"

And the comparison notes above this tell us that the wording here we use as application was used also as 'Attachment".

Therefore in our first quote it seems reasonable to assume that application (and not necessarily perfection) is being discussed.

The matter might be better clarified by looking at what he said in the Great Introduction:
(trans by Ben Dykes, Great Intro. VII)
"...but the beginning of the power of the conjunction of an aspect is if there were 12 degrees between both planets."

So we already have this notion of an orb being meaningful with regards the idea of applying planets. And his quote on void of course just requires the planets to 'attach' or 'apply'.

I would also argue that (at least some of) the medieval astrologers allowed applications to occur across sign boundaries such as where Umar says:
(Judges .131 trans by Ben Dykes)
"Which if it is impossible for it to reach it int he same sign as long as it crosses over into the next sign and the light of another planet is removed until it reaches it, it does not disagree with the previous judgement.
Also it is not otherwise for a star traversing in any sign, while it touches the degree of another star appearing in the second sign from it, with a ray of its own light. For if such a contact were missing, it would wholly remove the effect"

Clearly Umar here is talking about planets being said to be in connection provided their orbs connect, even if this is in different signs, or perfection would occur in another sign. Sahl says similar things (quotes provided if needed).


My personal reading of all this is that it is debatable whether or not these astrologers would focus more on whether or not the Moon applies (within an orb) of another planet whilst in a sign, or whether it perfects whilst in a sign. My own take is that application is the key requirement rather than perfection. I think Lilly's definition follows in accordance to a similar reading of this and so application rather than perfection is required. On Deb's void of course page we have another astrologer which seems to sum it all up in a much clearer way:

Johannes Sch?ner
"When a planet is separated from any other planet by conjunction or aspect, and is not joined to another by body or aspect, for as long as that planet is in the same sign, it is called void of course. However, this ought to be understood according the orbs and rays of the planets"


I think Lilly is following from this same kind of tradition.

1.Applying or not(void)
2.If applying then perfection presumed.
3.No perfection then refranation or other states of denial as described.
4.sign boundary for description and dignities of the planet in current state.
5.reaching into next sign does not change its dignities but the purpose to perfect remaina.

Paul wrote:But we do not have any mention of the planets needing to perfect, only to apply.

Of course we have, for instance this one: Abraham Ibn Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom, p. 120:

"Solitary Moon (Void of Couse) is when a planet seapartes from
another, whether in a conjunction by 15 degrees, or in aspect by 6
[degrees], and does not join another planet as long as it is in that same
sign, or no planet beholds it by a complete aspect, whichever it may be."

Paul wrote:My personal reading of all this is that it is debatable whether or not these astrologers would focus more on whether or not the Moon applies (within an orb) of another planet whilst in a sign, or whether it perfects whilst in a sign.
My own take is that application is more important than perfection. Johannes Sch?ner:
"When a planet is separated from any other planet by conjunction or aspect, and is not joined to another by body or aspect, for as long as that planet is in the same sign, it is called void of course. However, this ought to be understood according the orbs and rays of the planets"

I think Lilly is following from this same kind of tradition.

But, Paul, in your interpretation of Sch?ner you are not in agreement with the author himself and thus your implication, that Lilly's and Sch?ner's teachings followed "this same kind of tradition", is, as to VOC, not correct.
See the second, specified, example of Sch?ner, Opusculum Astrologicum Part 2: Canon XXIII, (you left out in your quotation):

"Another example, Saturn 9 Aries, Jupiter 10 Gemini, Mars 17 Gemini, Sun 20 Aries, Venus 5 Pisces, Mercury 24 Aries, Moon 26 Taurus. There the Moon is aspected by nothing in 26 Taurus, nor is anything joined to her, while she is in Taurus, wherefore she will be reckoned void of course."

In Lilly's terminology the Moon is a vacuo, i.e. has been VOC until he came to her application to the square-point of Venus at 5? Gemini; not using Lill's large orbs, but the general accepted (Venus = 7?; the Moon = 12?) we get an orb for the application of 9?30?. The distance between the position of the Moon and the square of Venus is only 9? degrees and thus the Moon is already since 30' in application and not void of course any more.
So here are, other then you affirm, two traditions: Sch?ner following the perfection (within the sign claiming) tradition and Lilly following the application (only claiming) tradition.

Johannes