Oculus wrote:If this were true, why didn't Lilly just write: "A planet is void of course, if he doesn't apply to another planet within orb." If he had mentioned orbs, you would be totally right in your interpretation.

But instead he states "A planet is void of course, if he doesn't apply to another planet during his beeing in that Sign". The definition of VOC Lilly uses clearly refers to exact aspects, not just the "beginning of application" (which itself is rather vague when orbs are regarded). This understanding of VOC is also in concordance with the majority of other traditional authors, which Lilly would have followed.

Hi Oculus,
I haven't had time to read this thread in great detail (this is my umpteenth to the power of infinity time that I've seen discussions like this ) but I seem to share the view that Johannes is expressing. The truth is, that Lilly was not always careful and precise in the wording of his introductory definitions, but expected his reader to 1) have some awareness of the influential sources of his day, and 2) grasp the details of the "quick and dirty" introductory definitions from the examples he gave. One of the most influential sources for Lilly was the work of Johannes Schoener, whose work was "out there" as Lilly wrote. Schoener's definition makes perfect sense of Lilly's use of the term as he applied it in his judgements, which you can see from some of the chart examples I explore on this link: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html#bac

Comparing Lilly's introductory definition with Schoener's definition of the term, we can see how Lilly appears to have merely reproduced the main element, but not the full explanation that Schoener gives (below).

Schoener - Opusculum Astrologicum Part 2: Canon XXIII wrote: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. Take for example the following: If there is the Moon conjunct Jupiter in Sagittarius, and after her separation from Jupiter there is no planet in Sagittarius to which she can be joined by the moiety of orb or of the ray of any planet which she can aspect, in that case the Moon is said to be void of course until she leaves Sagittarius and is joined to any planet in body or in aspect. But we do not observe this only in the Moon. 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."

My own view is that Lilly's work shouldn't be used in isolation as a definitive source for the details of technique - because of points such as this, where his initial explanations are often so brief as to be confusing when used without understanding of what was probably common knowledge in his day. Schoener's work is one which often gives a much better explanation of the technical details of the 'terms of art' that Lilly includes in his introduction. On the other hand, Lilly's work stands alone for presenting, by far, the most comprehensive and illuminating collection of examples of horary practice by a traditionally acknowledged expert in this field. Hope this helps.
Deb

Deb wrote: Hi Oculus,
I haven't had time to read this thread in great detail (this is my umpteenth to the power of infinity time that I've seen discussions like this ) but I seem to share the view that Johannes is expressing. The truth is, that Lilly was not always careful and precise in the wording of his introductory definitions, but expected his reader to 1) have some awareness of the influential sources of his day, and 2) grasp the details of the "quick and dirty" introductory definitions from the examples he gave.

Hey Deb,

speaking of other sources besides Lilly, I've actually looked up the definition of VOC in James Wilson's "Dictionary of Astrology" from 1819. Wilson is famous for his English translation of Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. In his dictionary, Wilson seems to have summarized many traditional sources into one work, amongst them Ptolemy and Placidus (at least we are being told this on the back-cover of the Astrology Classics edition). On p. 400 of the AC edition Wilson gives us the following definition of VOC:

"VOID of COURSE, when a planet forms no aspect during the remainder of its course through the sign where it is posited."

So Wilson is referring to an exact aspect here. This aspect has to be perfected before leaving the sign, otherwise the planet will be VOC. From the perspective of practising astrology, I'm sharing this point of view.

Deb wrote:One of the most influential sources for Lilly was the work of Johannes Schoener, whose work was "out there" as Lilly wrote. Schoener's definition makes perfect sense of Lilly's use of the term as he applied it in his judgements, which you can see from some of the chart examples I explore on this link: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html#bac

Comparing Lilly's introductory definition with Schoener's definition of the term, we can see how Lilly appears to have merely reproduced the main element, but not the full explanation that Schoener gives (below).

Schoener - Opusculum Astrologicum Part 2: Canon XXIII wrote: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. Take for example the following: If there is the Moon conjunct Jupiter in Sagittarius, and after her separation from Jupiter there is no planet in Sagittarius to which she can be joined by the moiety of orb or of the ray of any planet which she can aspect, in that case the Moon is said to be void of course until she leaves Sagittarius and is joined to any planet in body or in aspect. But we do not observe this only in the Moon. 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."

Lilly's definition seems to take the first sentence from Schoener, yet for some reason he's not even mentioning the orbs in the rest of his paragraph on CA I, p. 112. Maybe Lilly regards orbs as being self-evident, but taken by itself, his definition of VOC might be interpreted as referring to exact aspects.

Deb wrote: My own view is that Lilly's work shouldn't be used in isolation as a definitive source for the details of technique - because of points such as this, where his initial explanations are often so brief as to be confusing when used without understanding of what was probably common knowledge in his day. Schoener's work is one which often gives a much better explanation of the technical details of the 'terms of art' that Lilly includes in his introduction. On the other hand, Lilly's work stands alone for presenting, by far, the most comprehensive and illuminating collection of examples of horary practice by a traditionally acknowledged expert in this field. Hope this helps.
Deb

Thanks for your input. Of course, Lilly himself was an erudite man. He had collected aphorisms out of other works, and in CA was often repeating definitions given by older authors (like for example Leovitius and Schoener). William Lilly is good in natal astrology, though it seems not as elaborate as his contemporary Jean-Baptiste Morin - who in turn neglected the study of horary, stating it was useless.

Just so you know, I don?t presume to make a statement on what is right or wrong, workable or unworkable, just adding my own understanding of Lilly?s intention, which is the approach I follow and teach with good enough results that I?m happy to recommend it. The thread seems to have got stuck on this, so at the risk of repeating the point that Johannes has already made, the real issue is what the terms ?apply to? or ?joined to? should mean. Modern readers have different expectations to historical students who learned from older works because the tradition has clear explanations that planets are conceived as having entered into a state of ?connection? once they are united by the limits of their orbs (or ?rays?) ? see below for a couple of examples which are useful to consider. Once we take this for granted, the surprise is not that Lilly failed to explain this in his introductory definition, but that Schoener would take the trouble to insert the clarification.

Abu Ma?Shar c.787-886 wrote:Each one of them, in its body has power over a certain number of degrees before and after it. The power of the body of the Sun is 15? in front of it, and the same number behind it. The power of the body of Saturn and Jupiter, both of them, is 9? in front and behind?1

Sahl 9th cent. wrote:Know that the body of the Sun is 30?, half in front of it and half behind it. If any of the planets were between the Sun from 1? to 15?, [the Sun] radiates its light [over the planet], and it is connected with it.

?the planet is not considered departed from the [other] planet until the lighter one departs the heavier one by half of its body. It is its light, because each of the planets has a body, a light, and individual parts.

?when the Moon is not connecting to any of the planets and none are joining to it, this is called the void of movement of the Moon and its body; there is futility in it and it is the planet of exile.2

• 1. The Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology, tr. C. Burnett. Reston, VA; ARHAT, 1994; I.11, p.18.
  2. Works of Sahl & Masha?allah, tr. B. Dykes. Golden Valley, MN: Cazimi Press, 2008; Sahl: ?The Introduction?, 5.3, p.14 and p.15 and 5.10, p.35.

There is also a page of historical definitions here: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/voc.html - in most cases it is easy to see how they make most sense when this view is held in mind.

hi deb,

i am curious if you have anything to say about the idea of using a horary technique - void of course - and applying it in natal astrology? i had asked this question in the general astrology section hoping someone would have some thoughts on this, but i find no takers!! how about you? this thread and the focus on void of course in connection to a persons chart is what motivated me to post that thread.

Hi James

I wouldn't describe the concept of being void of course as being a horary technique. Take a look at the list of definitions given in the link I provided at the end of the last post - only the last one, by Lilly, has comments which are intended to be specific to the judgement of horaries; the rest are defining the concept in general terms, to be applied in any kind of chart. There is a difference, in that the Moon's importance is particularly emphasised in horary, but I've always thought that the study of horary provides a good way for astrologers to get more understanding of principles that are used in the traditional approach towards nativities, etc, although in natal work there are more techniques to consider because the scope of the astrologer's consideration is so much broader. A horary chart is very narrow and limited in its focus, so the difference is not so much about a switch of technique but a switch of emphasis, range and possibility. Hope that makes sense and you get some more input in your thread -it's a big question and probably deserves a lot more time and attention than I can give it right now.
Cheers, Deb

Deb wrote:

Abu Ma?Shar c.787-886 wrote:Each one of them, in its body has power over a certain number of degrees before and after it. The power of the body of the Sun is 15? in front of it, and the same number behind it. The power of the body of Saturn and Jupiter, both of them, is 9? in front and behind?1

Sahl 9th cent. wrote:Know that the body of the Sun is 30?, half in front of it and half behind it. If any of the planets were between the Sun from 1? to 15?, [the Sun] radiates its light [over the planet], and it is connected with it.

?the planet is not considered departed from the [other] planet until the lighter one departs the heavier one by half of its body. It is its light, because each of the planets has a body, a light, and individual parts.

?when the Moon is not connecting to any of the planets and none are joining to it, this is called the void of movement of the Moon and its body; there is futility in it and it is the planet of exile.2

• 1. The Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology, tr. C. Burnett. Reston, VA; ARHAT, 1994; I.11, p.18.
  2. Works of Sahl & Masha?allah, tr. B. Dykes. Golden Valley, MN: Cazimi Press, 2008; Sahl: ?The Introduction?, 5.3, p.14 and p.15 and 5.10, p.35.

There is also a page of historical definitions here: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/voc.html - in most cases it is easy to see how they make most sense when this view is held in mind.

Now we have left the ambiguous term of "apply" for the even more ambiguous term of "connect". Let's instead llustrate our understanding with a practical example.

As Johannes hasn't responded yet, I'm asking you now: If the Moon at 12 Leo were applying to trine Saturn at 29 Sagittarius out of orbs (yet still perfecting this applicative aspect while being in Leo), would the Moon be considered void of course according to your understanding of Lilly?

I'm not sure why you expect Johannes to reply again, when he has already given you many replies. Since you are the one that has been prolonging this discussion by insisting on what Lilly meant, the best advice I can give you is to read the link I posted before - http://www.skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html#bac - it gives very clear and detailed examples of what Lilly's approach was in that sort of situation, so is more illuminating than any discussion of hypothetical examples he didn't make.

Having read this whole thread more carefully now (and I'm sorry I didn't do that before), I'm more concerned about the fact that, without apparently knowing a lot about what Lilly's approach actually was, you use it as justification for publishing a very negative chart reading that clearly upset the originator of this thread. To excuse where you left astrology behind (ie, where there was no astrological justification for the comments you made) you quote Lilly's maxim to "mix art with discretion". That doesn't mean "pop in your flight of fancy" - the call for discretion is just as much about treading carefully, being aware that you might be mistaken, and not giving out harsh judgements that could cause needless upset (see his letter to the student that prefaces his work). The poster was specifically asking for information about her Mercury-Jupiter square. I think she was expecting something a little more illuminating than the warning to beware of judges, and the implication that her cunning, deceit, lying, trickery, etc are character flaws that are likely to turn her into a criminal.

You say the advantage of doing these anonymous cold readings for unknown persons is that you can be direct and harsh and feel no obligation to please - but in this forum the most important policy is "Remember that this board is public so you should avoid posting comments that could cause offence".

The way that you quoted Lilly here does a disservice to his work. You unapologetically continued to insist to the protesting poster that she suffers from very negative personality flaws, using frequent reproduction of Lilly's words, but you are not using the techniques or the approach he would have used. I don't think that you were really listening to the responses that the poster gave you; though they seemed very sincere to me - and certainly suggest a different character to the one that you portrayed. I don't think you are really engaging in a discussion of Lilly's definition of VOC either. Perhaps you need to step back and reflect a little longer on the responses that have already been given before pushing for more discussion (which is turning into the same words going round and round). In any event please exercise a little more discretion before using this board to write out demoralising character reports to new members who are searching for useful insights, not character assassinations, whether they are known to you or not. Your reading wasn't just 'cold', it was chilling.

Deb wrote:I'm not sure why you expect Johannes to reply again, when he has already given you many replies. Since you are the one that has been prolonging this discussion by insisting on what Lilly meant, the best advice I can give you is to read the link I posted before - http://www.skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html#bac - it gives very clear and detailed examples of what Lilly's approach was in that sort of situation, so is more illuminating than any discussion of hypothetical examples he didn't make.

Thanks for the link with practical examples of VOC from Lilly - at least something substantial in this discussion, which might prevent us from turning in circles forever. The link shows four horaries, in the latter two of which Lilly indeed chooses to ignore sign boundaries, despite stating otherwise in his definition of VOC at p. 112. Could it simply be that Lilly isn't following his own definition in these horaries?

This is a serious question, for we all know that Lilly's practice is sometimes different from his theory. In the introduction of CA, Lilly is only referring to the five Ptolemaic aspects: sextile, square, trine, opposition, conjunction (CA I, p. 25-26; cf. CA I, p. 105-108) - yet in the third book, while discussing his exemplary nativity, he is strangely speaking of new aspects like quincunxes, quintiles, sesquiquadrates, etc. which he didn't even mention in his introduction.

Deb wrote:Having read this whole thread more carefully now (and I'm sorry I didn't do that before), I'm more concerned about the fact that, without apparently knowing a lot about what Lilly's approach actually was, you use it as justification for publishing a very negative chart reading that clearly upset the originator of this thread. To excuse where you left astrology behind (ie, where there was no astrological justification for the comments you made) you quote Lilly's maxim to "mix art with discretion". That doesn't mean "pop in your flight of fancy" - the call for discretion is just as much about treading carefully, being aware that you might be mistaken, and not giving out harsh judgements that could cause needless upset (see his letter to the student that prefaces his work). The poster was specifically asking for information about her Mercury-Jupiter square. I think she was expecting something a little more illuminating than the warning to beware of judges, and the implication that her cunning, deceit, lying, trickery, etc are character flaws that are likely to turn her into a criminal.

I was just following the theoretical rules given by Lilly in CA III, speaking of lying and deceit when Mercury as significator of Manners is ill placed. Lilly also states that phlegmatic people are "dull fellows and sluggards in performing any business", though this may not be flattering to many. I literally knew nothing about the person of shannontyler89 except the birth chart when I engaged in this thread (see below), and I have backed up most of my statements with pages from CA.

Seems as if Lilly's astrology is indeed "harsh" from our perspective, but he's not the only one to blame. Traditional astrologers universally would be talking about death, misfortunes in life, personal flaws in character, etc. as if it was the most natural thing to do. Yet people in Lilly's time apparently didn't object to this judgement. So, aren't these things existent anymore nowadays? Am I wrong in the assumption that us modern people are "wimps" compared to the people in Lilly's time, whitewashing flaws as soon as they happen to contradict our vanity and narcissism?

Deb wrote:The way that you quoted Lilly here does a disservice to his work. You unapologetically continued to insist to the protesting poster that she suffers from very negative personality flaws, using frequent reproduction of Lilly's words, but you are not using the techniques or the approach he would have used. I don't think that you were really listening to the responses that the poster gave you; though they seemed very sincere to me - and certainly suggest a different character to the one that you portrayed. I don't think you are really engaging in a discussion of Lilly's definition of VOC either. Perhaps you need to step back and reflect a little longer on the responses that have already been given before pushing for more discussion (which is turning into the same words going round and round). In any event please exercise a little more discretion before using this board to write out demoralising character reports to new members who are searching for useful insights, not character assassinations, whether they are known to you or not. Your reading wasn't just 'cold', it was chilling.

I'm being depicted here as a baddie deliberately hurting a poor little girl, so I guess I have to clarify things. Initially I was assuming that shannontyler89 is a man, since I'm not familiar with American first names. Gender is not always that clear by writing-style only in the anonymity of internet. I only got to know that she is a woman much later, by noticing the sign of Venus beside her nick-name in the second chart that she had later posted. So when giving my judgement, I thought that shannontyler89 was a grown-up man, capable of bearing "harsh" (as you call it), well-founded judgement. Judgement is basically the same in the case of a woman, regardless of gender. But seeing that shannontyler89 is in fact a young, tender girl, I think I wouldn't have adressed my judgement at all in the first case. Hence, I'm sincerely sorry for my "gaucheness".

Male, female, young, old; I can't see how it makes a difference, and it doesn't help to suggest that the poster was a "young tender girl" or a "poor little girl" -nothing in her posts suggest that. Treat everyone with respect and consideration and then there won't ever be a problem. I'd again recommend you to read Lilly's preliminary letter, addressed to those who intend to study his work - he cautions the reader to not only be sufficiently instructed in technique before delivering judgement, but also, to always remain humane and courteous when doing that, so that we don't afflict anyone with harsh judgments but relate difficulties "by degrees" - that is, according to what they are open to, prepared for, and willing to consider at that time.

So no, I don't think that astrologers of Lilly's era or beyond were "harsh from our perspective" - they didn't whitewash flaws but they didn't invent them and then insist upon them either, out of vainly believing their judgement to be more important than the effect it has on the person it is supposed to be helping. If someone says that your judgement is very negative, and frankly wrong in its details - best to pull out. Don't batter them over the head by insisting that they are useless, idle and likely to turn to criminal acts, because of something you can quote from Lilly.

I appreciate you have given thought to this and I'm sure you believe you have offered an appropriate apology. I think it is best to close this thread because it has lost the originator (I have sent her my own apology for any embarrassment caused) - and we have drifted away from its purpose. All the points you are continuing to make about the VOC issue have already been answered in the replies you have had from Johannes and myself. Perhaps you missed the salient points, as you missed the link I gave to Lilly's charts in the first response I made to you? My subsequent response assumed you were aware of those issues and had them in mind when considering the references I gave from other historical astrologers. Together, you have enough pieces there to fit the puzzle together if you wish. If not, I doubt there's anything more that would convince you otherwise right now. Sometimes it takes time to be able to see things in a different way to how you expect to see them.

For now however, at least until I hear back from the opener that they are happy for the thread to continue, I think it is best to bring this discussion to a close. Why not leave it a while, and then if you are still troubled by your understanding of what Lilly wrote and did, start a new thread dedicated to the topic you want to explore?