I am aware that this is an age-old subject but some people seem to be very technical about it. Here is how I see it.

From CA:
"All manner of matters goe hardly on (except the principall significators be very strong) when the Moon is void of course; yet somewhat she performs if void of course, and be either in Taurus, Cancer, Sagittarius or Pisces."

The key here is "except the principall significators be very strong". If the principall significators be very strong, you don't have to worry about the Moon being void of course. If the principall significators don't be very strong, then the void Moon does not matter. You've got nothing so move on. So here you go.

If the Moon is applying (within orb, naturally) unto any planet, she is not void of course even if she is at 29?59' of the sign. If she does not apply to any planet, she is void of course.

The Moon is Cancer and Taurus is friendly and benevolent but it means nothing by itself. You have to look at the big picture. Just by herself, the Moon may 'somewhat perform' in Cancer to the same extent as Venus may 'somewhat perform' in Libra or Mars in Aries.

Unless it is a question about the location of things or people (something in someone's house etc), or some very general question, I am skeptical if there are no aspects in a chart where some action is required.

If you are looking to buy a house, if the significator of the house is strong, it means the house is a great shape. The mutual reception between the significators -- you like the house and vice versa. But if there is no aspect -- you will not get the house. You're in great shape, the house is in great shape, yet no deal. If the team you root for is in a great shape that does not guarantee they will win the match tonight.

So if the significators are weak, the Moon is void, you've got nothing 'to bring the matter to passe'. If the significators are strong, things may happen. The void Moon does not affect the astrologer's brain or make the chart unreadable, or unreliable or anything.

Hi, Seiko!

I'd just like to add a couple things. When Lilly says "things go hardly on", most people take "hardly" in its modern meaning, i.e. "scarcely". But what he means by 'hardly' is "in a hard way, with difficulty". That's why a strong significator is needed.

When the Moon is VoC, it means that "the Moon won't do anything". So, when I see the Moon in the last 2-3 degrees of a sign, the VoC becomes irrelevant. Because, the Moon will do something - it will change sign. And the quality of that change (gain or loss of dignity) becomes more important than the fact that the Moon won't make any more aspects.

Hi Seiko,

Have you read the latest article on Skyscript:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/TA16.html

You will see on page 40 of the magazine that Deb sites the primary sources on VOC Moons. We also have many old posts on the subject.

Gigi wrote:Hi, Seiko!

I'd just like to add a couple things. When Lilly says "things go hardly on", most people take "hardly" in its modern meaning, i.e. "scarcely". But what he means by 'hardly' is "in a hard way, with difficulty". That's why a strong significator is needed.

My understanding is that "void of course" translates Latin vacua cursu, and at least in contemporary English it is a bad translation.

Vacua cursu means simply that the Moon's path is empty (lit. empty, vacua, with regard to its running, cursu). I'd approximate the Latin meaning to one of those signs you see driving across Nebraska, cautioning you that the next exit is 75 miles ahead.

"Void of course" sounds more alarming, as if the Moon's orbit is invalid or that it is directionless. It isn't; it's just driving past endless fields of corn.

Steve,

vacua cursu does mean 'empty road', and that's why it is directionless. There is nothing on the path that says "reach me!", and no barriers to overcome either. Imagine driving past endless fields of corn, knowing there is nothing at the end of that road...

Since you quoted me, I'd like to make something clear. I was referring to Lilly's use of the word 'hardly', which had a different meaning in the 17th century English.

Seiko said:

If the Moon is applying (within orb, naturally) unto any planet, she is not void of course even if she is at 29?59' of the sign. If she does not apply to any planet, she is void of course.

Seiko, I'm sure you are aware of the controversy of Lilly's concept of the Moon making and aspect to a planet within Lilly's orbs yet in the next sign, and how contraversial it has been for many practicing Traditionalist?

I have a chart still running of two people who wished for a marriage bewteen each other, whom still communicate intimately sometimes on various issues, yet one is unhappily married to another after they had courted. So until one dies can I rule it out that they will never connect in matrimony even if the relationship is tradgic?

Point is this concept of say the Moon at 29 Taurus59 and applying to a trine say to venus as lord of the 2nd at 4 degrees Libra has been argued as very unsettling by many contemporary traditionalist.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Clinton Soule wrote:Seiko said:

If the Moon is applying (within orb, naturally) unto any planet, she is not void of course even if she is at 29?59' of the sign. If she does not apply to any planet, she is void of course.

Seiko, I'm sure you are aware of the controversy of Lilly's concept of the Moon making and aspect to a planet within Lilly's orbs yet in the next sign, and how contraversial it has been for many practicing Traditionalist?

I have a chart still running of two people who wished for a marriage bewteen each other, whom still communicate intimately sometimes on various issues, yet one is unhappily married to another after they had courted. So until one dies can I rule it out that they will never connect in matrimony even if the relationship is tradgic?

Point is this concept of say the Moon at 29 Taurus59 and applying to a trine say to venus as lord of the 2nd at 4 degrees Libra has been argued as very unsettling by many contemporary traditionalist.

Clinton Garrett Soule

The non-beholding aspects are unfortunate for the most part -- well, because they are just that, non-beholding. Unless there is some sort of a significant change, things probably will not go smoothly. But that has nothing to do with the Moon being void.

Lilly used the out-of-sign aspects and that's good enough for me.