Display posts from previous
Sort by

37 by Paul
johannes susato wrote: Of course we have, for instance this one: Abraham Ibn Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom, p. 120:
A bad choice of words on my part, I really meant to imply more that many say "join" or "apply" or "connect" but it's not always clear cut if this means to perfect, and in some cases it seems more likely (to me at least) that they mean to enter into orb with.
"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."
What orb does Johannes Shoener use? Does anyone know? I have a list that shows the Moon at 12 degrees as an orb, would Schoener then half this for its moiety?
I agree this is implies that Schoener does not allow for applying within an orb to negate the void of course moon, and yet it contradicts his definition of it.

39 by Paul
johannes susato wrote:Schoner's planet orbs are surely not other than those (smaller ones) Lilly is giving, and here are those of
Ibn Ezra: The Moon 12, Venus 7
Right, so would Schoener have halved this to get a moeity? If so then this might explain why Schoner consider this void of course, the closest is that at 29 degrees it makes a square to Venus.

When I was looking for his list of orbs, I also came across this article by Deb which I hadn't read before:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html

In it she makes essentially the same point I have:
Again taking the overview, it also seems obvious that when most authors refer to the Moon as 'void of course' they mean that it is out of ob of an aspect and will remain so for the duration of its transit through its current sign. One of the clearest definitions of this, and the way that medieval and renaissance astrologers expected the Moon to remain free of entering into the orb of application, is given by the German astrologer Johannes Sch?ner (1477-1547), who wrote in his Opusculum Astrologicum:

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..[etc]

This is as good a definition as we are likely to find regarding the traditional understanding of a void of course Moon. The main difference between this, and that frequently taught in modern textbooks, is that the latter often fails to stress the importance of the orb, leaving modern astrologers to believe the Moon is void of course if it doesn't manage to perfect a future aspect in its present sign, which would happen far more often than the traditional definition would allow.

40 by johannes susato
Paul wrote:
johannes susato wrote:Schoner's planet orbs are surely not other than those (smaller ones) Lilly is giving, and here are those of
Ibn Ezra: The Moon 12, Venus 7
Right, so would Schoener have halved this to get a moeity? If so then this might explain why Schoner consider this void of course, the closest is that at 29 degrees it makes a square to Venus.
To get the moiety of both planets orbs Sch?ner would have added the orbs of the Moon and Venus as given above - and in my opinion the data are really mainstream - and would have the sum of 19; divided by 2 makes 9? 30?.

This same result you will get following Lilly's repeated wording "the moieties of both their orbs". The moiety ( = half) of the Moon's orb of 12 degrees is 6?, the moiety ( = the half) of the orb of Venus of 7 degrees is 3?30?, in total 9?30?.

To the best of my remembrance it was the French astrologer and physician Dariot using the term "la moiti?" = the half for the first time in the French translation of his Latin text, about one hundred years before Lilly's CA.

The moiety, even tough it sounds so strange and arcane, does not affect the planets impact of the orbs at all unlike some authors seem to claim nowadays.

It is merely the fact of two calculi to say:
"add the orbs of both planets and take the half of it"
(12 + 7 = 19; 19 : 2 = 9 1/2)
or "take the halfs of the orbs of both planets and add them"
(12 : 2 = 6; 7 : 2 = 3 1/"; 6 + 3 1/2 = 9 1/2),
as it came in use at Lilly's times.

Johannes
Last edited by johannes susato on Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

41 by Paul
johannes susato wrote:
Paul wrote:
johannes susato wrote:Schoner's planet orbs are surely not other than those (smaller ones) Lilly is giving, and here are those of
Ibn Ezra: The Moon 12, Venus 7
Right, so would Schoener have halved this to get a moeity? If so then this might explain why Schoner consider this void of course, the closest is that at 29 degrees it makes a square to Venus.
To get the moiety of both planets orbs Sch?ner would have added the orbs of the Moon and Venus as given above - and in my opinion the data are really mainstream - and would have the sum of 19; divided by 2 makes 9? 30?.

This same result you will get following Lilly's repeated wording "the moieties of both their orbs". The moiety ( = half) of the Moon's orb of 12 degrees is 6?, the moiety ( = the half) of the orb of Venus of 7 degrees is 3?30?, in total 9?30?.

To the best of my remembrance it was the French astrologer and physician Dariot using the term "la moiti?" = the half for the first time.

The moiety, even tough it sounds so strange and arcane, does not affect the planets impact of the orbs at all unlike some authors seem to claim nowadays.

It is merely the fact of two calculi to say:
"add the orbs of both planets and take the half of it"
(12 + 7 = 19; 19 : 2 = 9 1/2)
or "take the halfs of the orbs of both planets and add them"
(12 : 2 = 6; 7 : 2 = 3 1/"; 6 + 3 1/2 = 9 1/2),
as it came in use at Lilly's times.

Johannes
Yeah I don't know why his definition and his example dont' seem to correlate correctly. I would have thought that he'd allow for the moeity of the other planets like most do but theorising that maybe he doesn't. I don't know, I should have paid more attention to the quote and the example as his definition seems at odds with his example unless he is meaning that the body of the other planet must fall within the orb of the Moon (not their orb falling within the Moon's).

42 by pankajdubey
Curious.

Moon@23deg aries, Venus at 1degree cancer.
Moons moiety extends Upto 29 deg but Venus'moity regresses Upto28degree Gemini.

Moon is the fastest still unable to reach Venus without venus' backwards influence.

does it make any qualitative difference?
Moon is the fastest and still unable to reach Venus till it gets a helping hand from Venus.

43 by Clinton Soule
Pankajdubey asked or said(?):

Moon@23deg aries, Venus at 1degree cancer.
Moons moiety extends Upto 29 deg but Venus'moity regresses Upto28degree Gemini.

Moon is the fastest still unable to reach Venus without venus' backwards influence.

does it make any qualitative difference?

I'm personally Not sure what you are asking by the style of your writing, could you clarify as you know what you wish to say but others as myself may Not understand you clearly?

But from what I think I do understand, is that you wish to know *if the moon is VOC but it is within orb of and moiety to a planet in another sign, like as you say 'Luna at 23 Aries making a sextile to Venus at 1 degree Cancer'*.

As I understand from debates or dialogues upon this very method of Lilly via the Angelicus Merlin Forum owned by Dorothy J. Kovach, Lilly did believe this and wrote upon it! However as stated below in another thread on Skyscript Forums, the participants in that discussion all had seemingly agreed that Lilly was in fact wrong upon this unlike 99 point something of what he taught in horary. And as I mentioned in the below quote it Did Not come together for me. However one must weigh more than the aspect to the lord of the matter like terms, face, etc., as one testimony alone is not a reliable indicator to give a verdict upon.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... sc&start=0
However Lilly did state 'that if a planet is aspecting a planet within orb yet in another sign it would manifest'. . . . . . . .

However on Angelicus Merlin Forum, owned and moderated by the adept and dedicated Dorothy J. Kovach, this has been heavily argued against. As if Lilly was wrong on this method or technique that he taught in CA.

I asked a question years ago about a 7th house love matter, of a woman I wanted to be with, and have been in many incarnations past, and using this method of Lilly it was a Yes. However, years latter we still talk as friends, but we both know in this incarnation we are symbolicly 'incarcerated from each other'.
Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men know how little they know[/quote]

44 by johannes susato
pankajdubey wrote:Curious.

Moon@23deg aries, Venus at 1degree cancer.
Moons moiety extends Upto 29 deg but Venus'moity regresses Upto28degree Gemini.

Moon is the fastest still unable to reach Venus without venus' backwards influence.

does it make any qualitative difference?
Moon is the fastest and still unable to reach Venus till it gets a helping hand from Venus.
In this new example your calculation insinuates that Venus' orb is only 6 degrees and not 7 degrees.
Do you have a quotation for that, please?

But even if we accepted the orb of Venus to be only 6 degrees, the Moon is already (since 1?) in application to the sextile point of Venus at 1? of Taurus, the point of the beginning application being at 22? of Aries.

The moieties of the orbs are 6? for the Moon, and then (if you were right with this tight orb) 3? for Venus, in total 9?. 1? of Venus in Cancer minus 9? is 22? degrees in Gemini. Minus 60? for the sextile aspect = 22? of Aries.
Last edited by johannes susato on Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:34 pm, edited 4 times in total.

45 by johannes susato
pankajdubey wrote:does it make any qualitative difference?
Like Clinton I had problems with your question. Please take my text above as an affirmation of your judgement.

With Morin I would say, that there is a differnce in the meanings of the Moon being sextiled by Venus, and vice versa in the meanings of Venus being sextiled by the Moon.

46 by johannes susato
pankajdubey wrote:
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.
:lala

@johannes

Wouldn't that be a misnomer :)

Applying to no application.

PD
Why should the application to a certain state, i.e. the state of being void of course = not separating from another planet and not applying to another planet, be a misnomer?
Wording "Applying to no application" you forgot one half of the definition of void of course.

47 by pankajdubey
@Clinton and @Johannes

Venus orb- I was tryng to simplify the maths.

In the question itself-
Is there any difference if the Moon's moiety extends beyond the sign to avoid the VOC or other planets moiety extending backwards into previous sign to help moon avoid being void.

Re: applying to void.
Whether moon was being void of course - it's own ways gone awry or applying to void of course as void being an object which will lead it to nothing.

PD

48 by johannes susato
pankajdubey wrote:@Clinton and @Johannes

Venus orb- I was tryng to simplify the maths.
Having known this at once would have been very helpful. :brows
pankajdubey wrote:In the question itself-
Is there any difference if the Moon's moiety extends beyond the sign to avoid the VOC or other planets moiety extending backwards into previous sign to help moon avoid being void.
As to my knowledge this distinction is not made by the "application authors"
pankajdubey wrote:Re: applying to void.
Whether moon was being void of course - it's own ways gone awry or applying to void of course as void being an object which will lead it to nothing.
Would you mind to repeat your question in other words, please. I donT understand it.

Johannes

PD[/quote]
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques”