skyscript.co.uk
   

home articles forum events
glossary horary quiz consultations links more

Read this before using the forum
Register
FAQ
Search
View memberlist
View/edit your user profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Recent additions:
Can assassinations be prevented? by Elsbeth Ebertin
translated by Jenn Zahrt PhD
A Guide to Interpreting The Great American Eclipse
by Wade Caves
The Astrology of Depression
by Judith Hill
Understanding the mean conjunctions of the Jupiter-Saturn cycle
by Benjamin Dykes
Understanding the zodiac: and why there really ARE 12 signs of the zodiac, not 13
by Deborah Houlding

Skyscript Astrology Forum

Void of Course, when is it actually VOC?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 380
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Brennan wrote:
I wrote an article recently where I tried to summarize the different definitions of void of course:

http://theastrologydictionary.com/v/void-of-course/


Hello Chris

Thanks for your efforts to round up VOC definitions through the ages. I found it informative and instructive. But may I point out - with the greatest respect - that the word "separating", or "separated", does not appear in your article even once.

Lilly (CA page 112) defines VOC as, "A Planet is void of course, when he is separated from a planet...."

Now, what does separated mean here? The Sue Ward school interpret this as meaning that the faster planet is no longer within orb and so separating from the slower planet. The aspect has now gone past perfection by a number of degrees more than the moity of the orbs so that the faster planet has separated from the slower one.

This would appear to be a crucial and critical difference to what you wrote.

I should add that this definition of Lilly's is echoed without dissension by every other 17th century English author that I have read, so it was not a definition that was peculiar to Lilly.

Geoffrey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Brennan wrote:
I wrote an article recently where I tried to summarize the different definitions of void of course:

http://theastrologydictionary.com/v/void-of-course/

At this point it looks like there are three separate definitions, although one of the definitions is somewhat contentious because it relies on an interpretation of Lilly's chart examples. It seems like a lot of people who follow Lilly's work use this third definition of void of course though, and so I'm surprised that I haven't seen it discussed more frequently.

Hopefully that article should clarify the different definitions though.


Thanks a lot for this clear and short aricle, Chris. Thumbs up Very Happy

I always thought, sign borders were the holy cows in hellenistic astrology. Shocked
The third definition does not rely on the interpretion of Lilly's chart examples: it relies on his own clear defintion, wording "application" instead of perfection, as others do. The examples only support then his definition.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris Brennan



Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 193
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geoffrey wrote:

Now, what does separated mean here? The Sue Ward school interpret this as meaning that the faster planet is no longer within orb and so separating from the slower planet. The aspect has now gone past perfection by a number of degrees more than the moity of the orbs so that the faster planet has separated from the slower one.

This would appear to be a crucial and critical difference to what you wrote.

I should add that this definition of Lilly's is echoed without dissension by every other 17th century English author that I have read, so it was not a definition that was peculiar to Lilly.



Ah, interesting! Thanks for pointing that out. I may have overlooked that facet of this interpretation of the definition, as I was under the impression that it was still primarily about applying aspects. I will need to go back and retool my writeup in order to add this point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris Brennan



Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 193
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:

The third definition does not rely on the interpretion of Lilly's chart examples: it relies on his own clear defintion, wording "application" instead of perfection, as others do. The examples only support then his definition.



That is a good point, although I would point out that when Lilly defines void of course, his definition is pretty similar to many of the earlier Medieval definitions. But then, most Medievalists (e.g. Zoller, Dykes) interpret the Medieval definition as being more in line with the modern definition, where there is no perfection before the planet leaves the sign. The big difference with Lilly is that there are several chart examples where one can test the hypothesis, and it is these chart examples which seem to become the deciding factor. Without the chart examples I could see this as being a much more hotly contested argument.

Does anyone know which contemporary traditional astrologers use Ward's interpretation of void of course, versus which use something closer to the modern definition? I'm particularly interested in people who draw heavily on Lilly, and how many of them use this approach in practice.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well spotted but increases the confusion.

So, if the faster planet(moon apparently is the fastest) is still within the moiety of orbs but beyond 17 minutes then the MOON VOC does not apply yet ?

Moon 10 degree virgo.
Saturn 9 degree taurus.
Next planet 4 degrees libra.

or a partile aspect is presumed.

But Lilly redefines Partile as three degrees.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gl/partile.html

Quote:
"A Partile Aspect comes to pass within the difference of three degrees".


Once you mix this much art and that much of discretion there is no exactitude left for a Definition in astrology Smile

PD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 380
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

By way of illustration of my earlier post, I offer this chart below.

Is the Moon void of course in this chart?



In contrast to Lilly, Coley did not use different example charts to illustrate an interpretation for particular questions associated with each house in turn. Coley used a single generic chart to illustrate how each question may answered.

Now, Coley was a school teacher. I suspect that this chart was chosen precisely because the Moon is near the end of a sign and applied to nothing before it leaves the sign.

Is the Moon void of course....? I think Coley would have mentioned it if he thought it was.

The point is that Coley was Lilly's student, friend, and chosen apostle. Coley had the opportunity to learn and argue about VOC with the man himself. All we can do is read what Lilly wrote. Coley's definition of VOC is exactly the same as Lilly's, but Coley did not think that the Moon in the chart above was VOC. Coley states that the moon was still separating from Saturn, but had separated from Mars.

Geoffrey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chris Brennan



Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 193
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm in the process of looking into this, and one question that has come up for me is what Lilly's definition of "separation" is. Are we sure that Lilly used the term "separation" in his definition of void of course to mean 'no longer within orb'? In book 1 he defines separation as occurring once the two planets have moved past the exact aspect by 6 minutes. But I suppose that the purpose of the example chart from Coley above is to argue that they were both using the orb-based version of separation within the context of the void of course definition, right Geoffrey? Can this be confirmed in Lilly's examples as well?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geoffrey wrote:
By way of illustration of my earlier post, I offer this chart below.

Is the Moon void of course in this chart?



In contrast to Lilly, Coley did not use different example charts to illustrate an interpretation for particular questions associated with each house in turn. Coley used a single generic chart to illustrate how each question may answered.

Now, Coley was a school teacher. I suspect that this chart was chosen precisely because the Moon is near the end of a sign and applied to nothing before it leaves the sign.

Is the Moon void of course....? I think Coley would have mentioned it if he thought it was.

The point is that Coley was Lilly's student, friend, and chosen apostle. Coley had the opportunity to learn and argue about VOC with the man himself. All we can do is read what Lilly wrote. Coley's definition of VOC is exactly the same as Lilly's, but Coley did not think that the Moon in the chart above was VOC. Coley states that the moon was still separating from Saturn, but had separated from Mars.

Geoffrey


Looks like Coley is using the three degree partile rule here.
Moon is within three degrees of Saturn.

Isn't Coley the chap for whom Lilly wrote the preface of the textbook.
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/clavis.html

So far,
1.Within moiety of orbs.
2. Three degree partile rule.
3.No sign boundaries ? Moon does not apply to any other planet within the moiety of orbs in the next sign as well.

So this chart is a confirmation of the Partile rule but not of not minding the sign boundaries.

Coley, though does write that he follows the sign boundaries:

Quote:
Void of Course is only thus, when a Planet separates from the Body or
Aspect of another, and applies to no other Planet, whilst he is in that Sign.
[This happens oftenest ... [Lun.] by reason of her swift motion.]


This still does not rule out the assumption that Moon would not be void if there were a planet within the moity of orbs in the next sign.

PD

Correction:
------------

Coley's partile is exact and Platick is within moiety of orbs.(no 3 degree rule here)

Quote:
OF THE ORBS OF THE PLANETS ASPECTS.
An Aspect of a Planet is either platique or partile[;] a partile Aspect is when
two Planets behold each other directly to the same degree and minute; as
suppose ☉ 10d. 20m. in ♈, and ♃ 10d. 20m. in ♊, this is a partile ∗
Aspect; now a platique Aspect is when two Planets behold each other
within the moiety of their Orbs.


Last edited by pankajdubey on Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:31 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 380
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Brennan wrote:
In book 1 he defines separation as occurring once the two planets have moved past the exact aspect by 6 minutes.


Hello Chris

I take this to mean that the aspect is no longer exact and separation starts when the faster planet has moved 6 minutes past the partile aspect to the slower. After all, a six minute uncertainty in the position of the planets - particularly the Moon - was not uncommon and the ephemerides could not be relied on to be accurate to the nearest second-of-arc as they can today. With that in mind, I don't see any conflict on the basis that Lilly and Coley were using to define "separation" for VOC.

Quote:
Can this be confirmed in Lilly's examples as well?


Without trawling through every example to check, I cannot recall a Lilly example, but if there is one I am sure somebody can give it to us....?

You asked earlier,

Quote:
Does anyone know which contemporary traditional astrologers use Ward's interpretation of void of course, versus which use something closer to the modern definition? I'm particularly interested in people who draw heavily on Lilly, and how many of them use this approach in practice.


I think that from Deborah Houlding's own piece on VOC on this website it is evident that she follows the Sue Ward school of thought. Lee Lehman differs in that she considers the Moon is VOC if it makes no Ptolemaic aspects until it leaves the sign it is in. To illustrate this, see the chart "If Presbytery shall stand?" (CA page 439) We see the Moon in 13 degrees of Libra, separating from an opposition to Venus at 9 degrees of Aries. (four degrees away...) In consequence, Lilly does not consider the Moon to be VOC, but he states (page 440) that the Moon then goes "vacua cursus" before applying in square to Mars at 25 degrees of Aries. Lee Lehman would say that since the Moon will apply to Mars before it leaves Libra, it will not become VOC until it comes within aspect of its square to Mars. Sue Ward et al follow Lilly.

Regards

Geoffrey


Last edited by Geoffrey on Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 380
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pankajdubey wrote:

This still does not rule out the assumption that Moon would not be void if there were a planet within the moity of orbs in the next sign.


An example to look at here is "If his Excellency Robert, Earl of Essex, should take Reading..." (CA page 401). We see the Moon at 27 degrees of Leo is within 8 degrees of a sextile to Mars in Cancer. The moity of the orbs is 9.5 degrees, so we are within aspect. But is the Moon void of course?

I think Lilly is stating that the Moon is VOC. On the chart are the words "A vac" indicating that the Moon is VOC. And at the bottom of the page he says that, ".....the Moon separated (a vacuo)..." from a trine to Jupiter at 9 degrees of Aries. This is despite the fact that he goes on to say that the Moon, "applyed to a sextile of Mars...", which it does as demonstrated above.

I would welcome the views of others on this.

Geoffrey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geoffrey wrote:
pankajdubey wrote:

This still does not rule out the assumption that Moon would not be void if there were a planet within the moity of orbs in the next sign.


An example to look at here is "If his Excellency Robert, Earl of Essex, should take Reading..." (CA page 401). We see the Moon at 27 degrees of Leo is within 8 degrees of a sextile to Mars in Cancer. The moity of the orbs is 9.5 degrees, so we are within aspect. But is the Moon void of course?

I think Lilly is stating that the Moon is VOC. On the chart are the words "A vac" indicating that the Moon is VOC. And at the bottom of the page he says that, ".....the Moon separated (a vacuo)..." from a trine to Jupiter at 9 degrees of Aries. This is despite the fact that he goes on to say that the Moon, "applyed to a sextile of Mars...", which it does as demonstrated above.

I would welcome the views of others on this.

Geoffrey


The problem is in the bold faced ones.
My Latin is as good as my Sanskrit but Sue Ward gives a vac as not is but was void of course.(i.e Moon is seperating from a previous void and now applying to another planet-hence not void)

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~sueward/articles/astrologyof%20lilly.htm

And yes, the Moon was void of course(after its application to Jupiter in 9 degree Aries) and now moving to sextile of Mars.

Don't blame me if that is not what Sue Ward meant in english.She actually call it a good example of what she is trying to explain.



Quote:
Figure E: This is a good example, because Lilly has noted the Moon’s progress as "a vac [from void of course] ad opposition Sun [to the opposition of the Sun]". The Moon’s last aspect was an opposition with Mercury over 12° before. The Moon has a moiety of around 6° and Mercury has a moiety of 3.5°, therefore at about 9° or 10° before, they were in aspect. Since then the Moon has been within the orbs of no other planet and so was void of course. The Moon is at 28°09’ Sagittarius and the Sun is at 5°31’ Cancer, so the Moon is applying to the opposition of the Sun.



and for Robert Earl of Essex:
Quote:
Lilly states again that the Moon is separating from void of course, but in this case its application is to a sextile of Mars. The Moon’s last aspect was by trine to Jupiter, but that was more than 17.5° before and their combined moieties are about 11°. The Moon is at 27°33’ Leo and Mars is at 5°14’ Cancer which constitutes an applying trine.



It will end up being a discussion on a , ad or ex- vacuo

PD


Last edited by pankajdubey on Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Brennan wrote:
I'm in the process of looking into this, and one question that has come up for me is what Lilly's definition of "separation" is. Are we sure that Lilly used the term "separation" in his definition of void of course to mean 'no longer within orb'? In book 1 he defines separation as occurring once the two planets have moved past the exact aspect by 6 minutes. But I suppose that the purpose of the example chart from Coley above is to argue that they were both using the orb-based version of separation within the context of the void of course definition, right Geoffrey? Can this be confirmed in Lilly's examples as well?


I should like to quote Lilly at length because of the importance fo the understanding of his teachings as to the 6 minutes, the application and separation: Lilly, CA, p. 110:

"Separation, it is in the first place, when two Planets are de-
parted but six minutes distances from each other, as let SA be in
10. degr. and 25. of ar and JU in 10. degr. and 25. min. of ar:
now in these degrees and minutes they are in perfect 0°; but
when JU shall get into 10. degr. and 31. or 32. minutes of ar,
he shall said to be separating from SA; yet because SA hath
9. degr. allowed him for his rayes, and JU hath also the same
number allowed him, JU cannot be said to be totally separated
or cleere from the rayes of SA, untill he hath got 9. whole de-
grees further into ar, or is fully 9. degr. distant from him,
for the halfe of JU his orbe is 4. degr. 30. min. and the halfe of
SA his orbe is 4. degr. 30. min. added together they make 9.
whole degrees; for every Planet that applies is allowed halfe
his owne orbs and halfe the orbs of that Planet from whom
he separates: As if SO and MO be in any aspect, the MO shall then
be separated from the SO, when she is fully distant from the SO
7. degr. and 30. min. viz. half the orbs or the SO, and 6. degr. the
moity of her owne orbes; in all 13. degr. and 30. minutes.
The exact knowledge hereof is various and excellent: For
admit two Planets significators in Marriage at the time of the
question, are lately separated but a few minutes; I would then
judge there had been but few dayes before great probability of
effecting the Marriage, but now it hung in suspence, and there
seemed some dislike or rupture in it; and as the significators
doe more separate, so will the matter and affection of the par-
ties more alienate and vary; and according to the number of
degrees that the swifter Planet wanteth ere he can be wholly
separated from the more ponderous, so will it be so many
weekes, dayes, moneths, or yeers ere the two Lovers will whol-
ly desist or see the matter quite broke off:"


As I wrote in another forum of this site the space of six minutes marks only the beginning of the separation.

Very interesting and important is his lapse, mingling separation and application:
"for every Planet that applies is allowed halfe
his owne orbs and halfe the orbs of that Planet from whom
he separates:"

thus giving the lacking specification of the application's definition indirectly.

Furthermore we should not forget, that in his examples (Book II) Lilly often calls a planet to be "separated", when in fact he is still "separating" or "in Separation" after Lilly's own defenition, the planets being still "within the moieties of both their orbs" and is not yet
"totally separated or cleere"
or "fully distant"
or "wholly separated"
as he formulates in his explanations and the marriage example above.

Johannes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 380
Location: Scottish Borders

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 1:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pankajdubey wrote:


It will end up being a discussion on a , ad or ex- vacuo


No, I think you have it right. A or ex vacuo would be from vacuum. Ad vacuo would be to vacuum. If the Moon was presently void of course, I guess the expression would be in vacuo

Thanks for that

Geoffrey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 4:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 Happy

@johannes

Wouldn't that be a misnomer Smile

Applying to no application.

PD
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Traditional (& Ancient) Techniques All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
. Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

       
Contact Deborah Houlding  | terms and conditions  
All rights on all text and images reserved. Reproduction by any means is not permitted without the express
agreement of Deborah Houlding or in the case of articles by guest astrologers, the copyright owner indictated