Display posts from previous
Sort by

Void Moon - Old Twist

1 by Tom
What follows could have been posted on the traditional forum, but I thought it would be more useful here on the horary forum. I found this on John Frawley's website:
When reading old astrological literature, we find unfamiliar words which can make it difficult to understand what the writer is saying. Even more of a problem, though, are the familiar words: words which we use every day, but whose meaning has changed over time. At least with the unfamiliar words we know we have a problem; with the familiar ones, we have a problem but often don?t know it. This can lead us astray.

Today, the word ?hardly? is synonymous with ?scarcely?. This is a corruption of meaning. In the past, hardly meant exactly what it says. It is the adverb formed from hard, and so meant ?in a hard way?.

What Lilly says about the void of course Moon is ?things go hardly on?. Modern writers, thinking hardly means scarcely, have taken this to mean that nothing will happen: things scarcely move. What Lilly intended is ?things go on in a hard way?, so things proceed with difficulty. Of course, if things proceed with difficulty people often give up, either through a failure of will or the realisation that the prize is not worth the candle, so this can amount to the same thing, but it?s not what Lilly meant.
http://www.johnfrawley.com/VoC.htm


I came across this realization once before, in C.S. Lewis book, The Discarded Image where he pointed out that change over time in the meaning of the word "jovial." BUt my first question is could John be right? So I went to the Online Etymology Dictionary and found this:
hardly
c.1205, "in a hard manner, with energy and force," from hard (q.v.). Main modern sense of "barely, just" (1553) reverses this, via the intermediate meaning "not easily, with trouble." Formerly with superficial negative (not hardly).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?sea ... hmode=none


"In a hard manner" could easily mean "with difficulty," and that justifies John's argument. Before agreeing wholeheartedly with this, I was wondering does someone have access to the OED, the best source to settling etymology arguments, and then if it turns out that Frawley is correct, what does this do to our understanding of the void Moon?

Tom

2 by Tara
Interesting, thanks for this Tom. It's an intriguing line of thought.

I don't have an OED but I have noticed that when the moon is VOC things do often just disappear into the void without delivering the results one had hoped for. Things don't turn out as planned. This also to me makes more sense than the "things are harder to accomplish" slant as the void moon is a time when no connections are being made -- A does not lead to B because A drops the ball before it reaches B.

Maybe the two meanings are not so contradictory. If it "comes to nothing", it's often after a great deal of trying to make it come to something, which supports the idea that Lilly's use of the word "hardly" means it's hard going. So hard in fact that it doesn't go anywhere at all.

Tara

4 by ###
Here are all entries for 'hardly' from the two-volume The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993).

Note: 'ME-E19' means Middle English to early 19th Century.

1. [obsolete] With energy, force, or strenuous exertion; vigorously, forcibly, violently. ME-E19.

2. [obsolete] Boldly, daringly, hardily. ME-E17.

3. [obsolete] Firmly. ME-L16.

4. With severity or rigour; harshly. E16.

5. With trouble or hardship; uneasily, painfully. Now rare. M16.

6. Not easily, with difficulty. Long rare exc. as passing into sense 7. M16.

7. Barely, only just; almost not; not quite; scarcely. M16.

8. In close proximity, closely. rare. L16.

5 by Darlene3
Tom,

Thank you for this information regarding the use of the word ?hardly? in Lilly?s day.
I was wondering does someone have access to the OED, the best source to settling etymology arguments
I do have the OED. It is a hard copy, therefore, no way to cut and paste the lengthy references. There are nine definitions for ?hardly?. Eight of the nine definitions are noted Obs (obsolete) and variously support John Frawley?s assertion that,
What Lilly intended is ?things go on in a hard way?, so things proceed with difficulty.
OED main definitions are,
Hardly ?. In a hard manner.

1. With energy, force, or strenuous exertion; vigorously, forcibly, violently. Obs.
2. Boldly, daringly, hardily. Obs.
3. Firmly. Obs.
4. With hard pressure; with severity or rigor; severely, rigorously, harshly. Obs.
5. With trouble or hardship; uneasily, painfully. Obs.
6. Not easily, with difficulty. Obs. exc. as contained in 7.
7. Barely, only just; almost not; not quite; scarcely. (In early use only gradually distinguished from 6?.)
8. In close proximity, closely; = Hard adv 6.
9. Parenthetically. Certainly, assuredly, by all means: See Hardily 3. Obs.
The references for the eight obsolete definitions are dated from 1205 through 1880. Definition #7 is the modern one but the reference years begin 1553 and continue through 1874 thereby overlapping the obsolete reference years by more than 300 years, including Lilly's day. Such is noted as well in the definition that there was a time overlap in usage.

I am not sure what to think about which definition Lilly intended. Based on the OED could it be either? Definition #6 and #7 are mutually referenced seeming to say the modern definition of 'barely, etc...' is linked to hardship in itself (#6). Or am I over-thinking it? My next step would be to view his chart examples for clues.

Darlene

7 by Tom
Thank you Kirk and Darlene for your efforts. The best way to do this, one that I will not undertake, is to search through CA for use of this word and if possible, determine what Lilly meant by context. Another way is to look to his contemporaries, and antecedents. The problem is that his astrological antecedents wrote in Latin and Arabic and modern translators would probably unknowingly put the more modern spin on it.

One other potential source is the first edition of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary (1775). Johnson's wasn't the first English Dictionary, but it was the first that tried to codify English as it was used. Previous Dictionaries consisted largely of technical and seldom used words. Johnson cited authorities like Shakespeare and others for usage and definition and his would be a good source even if he wrote 150 years after the publication of CA. I seriously doubt anyone has a first edition as it is worth a fortune, but facsimiles are available and a bibliophile or two might be on board.

I tried online, but didn't find anything. I'll try other 17th century English astrologers.

Tom

8 by Tom
I couldn't help myself. I started persuing books and pulled out Masha'allah's book On Reception translated and edited by Rob Hand. This booklet is primarily concerned with horary astrology.

Hand notes in at least two places that Masha'allah treats the void Moon as an impediment, but not necessarily a deal killer. He discusses several charts from the text and I'll just give one quote:
The most interesting thing about this chart is that both of the significators of the querent are void in course (a slightly more accurate translation of the Latin than "Void of course0, and that this does not necessarily mean a negative outcome. Masha'allah makes it clear in these passages that a planet's being void is an impediment but not one that spells necessary doom to the question."
Hand's observation puts Masha'allah in the Frawley camp and gives credence to the idea that Lilly used the older meaning of the word "hardly,'i.e. with difficulty. This is not to say that every chart with a void Moon will have a positive outcome, but rather that the void Moon indicates more than "nothing will happen."

Tom

9 by Gem
The best way to do this, one that I will not undertake, is to search through CA for use of this word and if possible, determine what Lilly meant by context.
Deb's most excellent and definitive article on the VOC, 'The Moon as the Transmitter of Influences' includes Lilly's examples, demonstrating how he read and judged the VOC Moon:
www.skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html
Last edited by Gem on Tue May 27, 2008 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

10 by cosmicdolphin
Hi everyone

Since very recently i started saving all charts Yes and No's. I had 1 chart on Will i spend time with so and so. Moon was VOID however, the significators were applying in a trine but VERY VERY debilitated. So nothing came through. Unfortunately, I have more Nos than Yes's

another chart i had had significators applying in a sextile but moon was void. I figured ohhh nooo. it turned out to be a yes WITH A GREAT difficulty.

it seems like the Moon verifies or validates what the significators are saying

Very interesting disccussion

Thanks everyone

CD

11 by Gem
Steven
I deleted the first part before reading your post because it occurred to me (to use your words):
many cases it is the significator of the querent and the quesited that indicate the perfection or denial of a matter!
I don`t think that was bizzare :(

12 by carriere.francois
Hello everyone,

Using Janus 4.2 (traditional parameters), I may have a problem with the ?traditional? and ?modern? definitions of Void of Course Moon. Yesterday, I casted a chart for June 18, 2009, 15h15 EDT, Montreal (Quebec) 73w34 45n31. ASC. 24:23 Libra, Moon 2:49 Taurus.

In this chart, Moon is 2:49 Taurus, Venus, 12:24 Taurus and Mars, 13:15 Taurus. As far as I know, the next aspects of the Moon on the ecliptic are the conjuntions to those two planets, and thus, we don't have a VOC Moon...

So I suspect a bug in Janus 4.2.

Either I am sleeping or others are :-T
Regards,
François CARRIÈRE
!! Read first: forum policies
Recent topics
Post Reply

Return to “Horary & Electional Astrology”