Hello Clinton,
Does anyone have any experience with this controversial Lilly technique that I'm sure sends shivers down our VOC mindsets of interpretations?
Actually, its not explicitly a 'Lilly's technique' as you suggest. In his book 'The Void of Course Moon' Maurice McCann demonstrates how every astrologer in that period in England did not regard a Moon which applies across the sign boundary as VOC.
More fundamentally, there are many traditional references that could be used to support this view. Take a look at this article by Deborah Houlding:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/voc.html
For example:
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. Abu 'Mashar - The Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology Chap. 3, v21
Note the key point is about the planet forming an applying aspect before it leaves the sign to avoid being VOC. There is no reference to it having to perfect its aspect before leaving sign here.
Lilly didn't operate in a historical vacuum. He was following a technique well established before him. For example, look at the defintion of VOC given in Deb's article by Johannes Sch?ner (15th cent.) or Claude Dariot ( 16th cent)
The other point is that this does not just apply to the Moon. The same approach is used with all planets by those working with the out-of-sign approach.
However, its true horary practitioners disagree on this. Some like John Frawley generally only consider a planet that perfect an aspect before leaving sign (he will consider out-of-sign aspects within a 3 degree orb I believe). Other leading horary practitioners such as Deborah Houlding , and Sue Ward apply the out-of-sign approach just as Lilly and others did. These astrologers will consider aspects with planets that perfect across the sign boundary as long as an applying aspect is formed beforehand in sign.
Like so so many other aspects of the astrological art there is no black and white answer. You will have to put the idea to the test and see what works for you. Just like choice of zodiac, house system, aspect method or use of fixed stars or antiscia only you can ultimately decide.
It needs to be said though that supporters of the out-of-sign aspect approach do not see applying aspects working as smoothly or straightforwardly this way as when aspects perfect in-sign. Deborah Houlding always emphasizes there is some kind of change of condition or environment surrounding the question that alters the way the perfection is achieved across the sign boundary. There is a sense quite literally of 'crossing the rubicon'. For example in a lost property question an out-of-sign aspect might quite literally represent a wall separating the object from its seeker.
I can give you an example of this. I had a property question about whether a friend would sell their property and if so would they achieve it in 6 weeks?
The basic significators were not applying. Indeed the querents significator conjoined Saturn first. However, the Moon was applying in a trine across the sign boundary to the Sun ( significator of house buyer). What could this mean? I will not go into the whole horary but I advised the price was too high and initial buyer would pull out or at least not commit to a firm offer. However, after a delay and a more realistic packaging of the property it would sell shortly after the period sought by the seller. This indeed is what happened.
In the end , the price had to be lowered and a sale went ahead after this. It seems to me the out-sign dimension perfecctly described the dynamics of this question in a way a straightforward whole sign approach would have failed to do.
(
I should mention that this question came up during the housing boom before house prices became deflated everywhere. Clearly telling a seller to lower their price these days would not require a horary chart!)
Thats typical of what an out of sign applying aspect can mean. Its not a straightforward no as the whole -sign approach might imply. However, its not a straightforward yes either. Something had to change in the condition surrounding the question for the perfection showing across the sign boundary to be achieved.
Mark