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
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Brennan wrote:
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.


If you read Lilly's following definition of void of course, there is simply no place for a hot contest, Lilly wording very clearly, and also as to the application, in CA, p. 112:

"A Planet is voyd of course, when he is separated from a Pla-
net, nor doth forthwith, during his being in that Signe, ap-
ply to any other: This is most usually in the MO; in judge-
ments doe you carefully observe whehter she be voyd of course
yea or no; you shall seldome see a businesse goe handsomely
forward when she is so."


This is why I said earlier that the third definition of your text does not rely on the interpretation of Lilly's chart examples but from the beginning on his own clear defintion, wording "to apply" instead of perfection, as others do, and that therefore the later examples only support and verify his definition then.

Johannes
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 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:

If you read Lilly's following definition of void of course, there is simply no place for a hot contest, Lilly wording very clearly, and also as to the application, in CA, p. 112:

"A Planet is voyd of course, when he is separated from a Pla-
net, nor doth forthwith, during his being in that Signe, ap-
ply to any other: This is most usually in the MO; in judge-
ments doe you carefully observe whehter she be voyd of course
yea or no; you shall seldome see a businesse goe handsomely
forward when she is so."


This is why I said earlier that the third definition of your text does not rely on the interpretation of Lilly's chart examples but from the beginning on his own clear defintion, wording "to apply" instead of perfection, as others do, and that therefore the later examples only support and verify his definition then.



The counterargument to this that I've seen raised is the question of why Lilly mentions the sign at all if the definition only really has to do with the orb of application (and possibly separation). Why does he add the clause "during his being in that Signe"?

I'm not really trying to argue one position or another here, but I'm just pointing out how I can see where some people would argue that there is some level of ambiguity even in this basic definition, which could lead to two different interpretations.

Or maybe I'm not understanding how the clause about being in the same sign is necessary or relevant within the context of the Ward interpretation of the definition? Is there an explanation for this?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Geoffrey



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

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Brennan wrote:

Or maybe I'm not understanding how the clause about being in the same sign is necessary or relevant within the context of the Ward interpretation of the definition? Is there an explanation for this?


I think we need to go back to the 1980s when many astrologers were disenchanted with the way that modern astrology was going. The huge effort in scientific (statistical) research into the validity of astrological principles was burying itself into the ground. The astrological world was ready for a counter-reformation.

While there were a number of astrologers who had been looking at what we now call "traditional" astrology before Olivia Barclay, my recollection of those days is that it was her simple enthusiasm, coupled with a fine mind and a thick skin that repelled any criticism like an umbrella shedding rain, that fired the starting gun on the rush back to study of traditional astrology. She shouted, "Look at this stuff, it works!" and others found that she was right!

This is important, because Olivia taught that if the Moon was not going to perfect any aspect until it exited the sign it was in, the Moon was void of course. As Johannes says, "apply" in Lilly's definition was taken to mean, "perfect". Olivia had learned about void or course from authors such as Ivy Goldstein-Jacobson and Barbara Watters, who wrote that the Moon was void of course if it "makes" no major aspect before exiting the sign it was in. Here "makes" was taken to mean "perfects" (in 17th century speak) and Olivia saw no contradiction to this interpretation when she saw Lilly use the word, "applies".

Now, many of Olivia's students went on to teach and proselytize others about the old ways and they were the vanguard of a sea-change in the astrological elite. Before Olivia, it was the scientist-astrologers who occupied the front table of speakers on the conference rounds. After Olivia, it was the historian-astrologers who took their places, many of whom had been taught by Olivia, and so used her interpretation of void of course.

Olivia had merely assumed Lilly had been 'artful' in the application of void of course in his charts, and it was not until Sue Ward looked a little deeper into the matter that what Lilly had really been saying about void of course became apparent. It was not as clear as Johannes suggests. As you rightly imply Chris, Lilly's definition is ambiguous and it is not until you examine Lilly's charts in detail that his true meaning becomes apparent.

Olivia, and others, liked Olivia's interpretation as it was clear-cut and it worked. There was a lot of argument and acrimony over the matter, but it was clear that when looking at Lilly's use of void of course in his charts - and how other 17th century astrologers were using void of course in their charts - that the Sue Ward interpretation was more in line with how 17th century astrologers thought about void of course.

The Sue Ward school of thought won the argument, but the echo of Olivia's interpretation of void of course continues to reverberate around the astrological world - as we have seen in this thread.

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


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1544

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris Brennan wrote:
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.


I always wonder about this, because I agree that Lilly's definition is more similar to the medieval one, but I do not understand why most medieval astrologers interpret the definition as requiring perfection.

For example on Deb's void of course page:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/voc.html

Abu Mashar says:
""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. "

But we do not have any mention of the planets needing to perfect, only to apply.

Ben Dykes translates it differently:
"[void of course] is if, after little disregard some star ataches to it in none of the above stated ways, but neither does it attach to any [star] whilst it is in that sign"

But I think the meaning is the same. In the header introductions to these sections Ben Dykes gives a convenient comparison in the use of wording amongst translators. Here where I have included [void of course] Ben Dykes actually uses the word "Solitude" which we see from this comparison is the word used by Hermann. John of Spain translates this word as void of course, which I've used here as we're familiar with that term. In the quote we have the notion of whether or not the Moon "attaches" to another planet and the key focus here is whether attach means perfect an aspect or just apply to an aspect (ie, enter into orb). Well we're told that this is true provided it doesn't "attach" in any of the above ways.

In the previous section, we're told of the ways it could attach.

Abbr III.14
"However, one application of longitude is in the same sign, the other in a different one. But of the one which is in different ones, one is without a regard, the other is with a regard (whether hexagonal or tetragonal or tigonal). However whichever one it was, if it reaches the one which it pursues closely, it is the end of the application"

And the comparison notes above this tell us that the wording here we use as application was used also as 'Attachment".

Therefore in our first quote it seems reasonable to assume that application (and not necessarily perfection) is being discussed.

The matter might be better clarified by looking at what he said in the Great Introduction:
(trans by Ben Dykes, Great Intro. VII)
"...but the beginning of the power of the conjunction of an aspect is if there were 12 degrees between both planets."

So we already have this notion of an orb being meaningful with regards the idea of applying planets. And his quote on void of course just requires the planets to 'attach' or 'apply'.

I would also argue that (at least some of) the medieval astrologers allowed applications to occur across sign boundaries such as where Umar says:
(Judges .131 trans by Ben Dykes)
"Which if it is impossible for it to reach it int he same sign as long as it crosses over into the next sign and the light of another planet is removed until it reaches it, it does not disagree with the previous judgement.
Also it is not otherwise for a star traversing in any sign, while it touches the degree of another star appearing in the second sign from it, with a ray of its own light. For if such a contact were missing, it would wholly remove the effect"


Clearly Umar here is talking about planets being said to be in connection provided their orbs connect, even if this is in different signs, or perfection would occur in another sign. Sahl says similar things (quotes provided if needed).


My personal reading of all this is that it is debatable whether or not these astrologers would focus more on whether or not the Moon applies (within an orb) of another planet whilst in a sign, or whether it perfects whilst in a sign. My own take is that application is the key requirement rather than perfection. I think Lilly's definition follows in accordance to a similar reading of this and so application rather than perfection is required. On Deb's void of course page we have another astrologer which seems to sum it all up in a much clearer way:

Johannes Schöner
"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"


I think Lilly is following from this same kind of tradition.


Last edited by Paul on Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:57 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

1.Applying or not(void)
2.If applying then perfection presumed.
3.No perfection then refranation or other states of denial as described.
4.sign boundary for description and dignities of the planet in current state.
5.reaching into next sign does not change its dignities but the purpose to perfect remaina.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
But we do not have any mention of the planets needing to perfect, only to apply.

Of course we have, for instance this one: Abraham Ibn Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom, p. 120:

"Solitary Moon (Void of Couse) is when a planet seapartes from
another, whether in a conjunction by 15 degrees, or in aspect by 6
[degrees], and does not join another planet as long as it is in that same
sign, or no planet beholds it by a complete aspect, whichever it may be."




Paul wrote:
My personal reading of all this is that it is debatable whether or not these astrologers would focus more on whether or not the Moon applies (within an orb) of another planet whilst in a sign, or whether it perfects whilst in a sign.
My own take is that application is more important than perfection. Johannes Schöner:
"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"

I think Lilly is following from this same kind of tradition.

But, Paul, in your interpretation of Schöner you are not in agreement with the author himself and thus your implication, that Lilly's and Schöner's teachings followed "this same kind of tradition", is, as to VOC, not correct.
See the second, specified, example of Schöner, Opusculum Astrologicum Part 2: Canon XXIII, (you left out in your quotation):

"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."

In Lilly's terminology the Moon is a vacuo, i.e. has been VOC until he came to her application to the square-point of Venus at 5° Gemini; not using Lill's large orbs, but the general accepted (Venus = 7°; the Moon = 12°) we get an orb for the application of 9°30´. The distance between the position of the Moon and the square of Venus is only 9° degrees and thus the Moon is already since 30' in application and not void of course any more.
So here are, other then you affirm, two traditions: Schöner following the perfection (within the sign claiming) tradition and Lilly following the application (only claiming) tradition.

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


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1544

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 3:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:

Of course we have, for instance this one: Abraham Ibn Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom, p. 120:


A bad choice of words on my part, I really meant to imply more that many say "join" or "apply" or "connect" but it's not always clear cut if this means to perfect, and in some cases it seems more likely (to me at least) that they mean to enter into orb with.

Quote:

"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."


What orb does Johannes Shoener use? Does anyone know? I have a list that shows the Moon at 12 degrees as an orb, would Schoener then half this for its moiety?
I agree this is implies that Schoener does not allow for applying within an orb to negate the void of course moon, and yet it contradicts his definition of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Schoner's planet orbs are surely not other than those (smaller ones) Lilly is giving, and here are those of
Ibn Ezra: The Moon 12, Venus 7
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1544

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:
Schoner's planet orbs are surely not other than those (smaller ones) Lilly is giving, and here are those of
Ibn Ezra: The Moon 12, Venus 7


Right, so would Schoener have halved this to get a moeity? If so then this might explain why Schoner consider this void of course, the closest is that at 29 degrees it makes a square to Venus.

When I was looking for his list of orbs, I also came across this article by Deb which I hadn't read before:
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/moon2.html

In it she makes essentially the same point I have:

Quote:
Again taking the overview, it also seems obvious that when most authors refer to the Moon as 'void of course' they mean that it is out of ob of an aspect and will remain so for the duration of its transit through its current sign. One of the clearest definitions of this, and the way that medieval and renaissance astrologers expected the Moon to remain free of entering into the orb of application, is given by the German astrologer Johannes Schöner (1477-1547), who wrote in his Opusculum Astrologicum:

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..[etc]

This is as good a definition as we are likely to find regarding the traditional understanding of a void of course Moon. The main difference between this, and that frequently taught in modern textbooks, is that the latter often fails to stress the importance of the orb, leaving modern astrologers to believe the Moon is void of course if it doesn't manage to perfect a future aspect in its present sign, which would happen far more often than the traditional definition would allow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul wrote:
johannes susato wrote:
Schoner's planet orbs are surely not other than those (smaller ones) Lilly is giving, and here are those of
Ibn Ezra: The Moon 12, Venus 7


Right, so would Schoener have halved this to get a moeity? If so then this might explain why Schoner consider this void of course, the closest is that at 29 degrees it makes a square to Venus.

To get the moiety of both planets orbs Schöner would have added the orbs of the Moon and Venus as given above - and in my opinion the data are really mainstream - and would have the sum of 19; divided by 2 makes 9° 30´.

This same result you will get following Lilly's repeated wording "the moieties of both their orbs". The moiety ( = half) of the Moon's orb of 12 degrees is 6°, the moiety ( = the half) of the orb of Venus of 7 degrees is 3°30´, in total 9°30´.

To the best of my remembrance it was the French astrologer and physician Dariot using the term "la moitié" = the half for the first time in the French translation of his Latin text, about one hundred years before Lilly's CA.

The moiety, even tough it sounds so strange and arcane, does not affect the planets impact of the orbs at all unlike some authors seem to claim nowadays.

It is merely the fact of two calculi to say:
"add the orbs of both planets and take the half of it"
(12 + 7 = 19; 19 : 2 = 9 1/2)
or "take the halfs of the orbs of both planets and add them"
(12 : 2 = 6; 7 : 2 = 3 1/"; 6 + 3 1/2 = 9 1/2),
as it came in use at Lilly's times.

Johannes


Last edited by johannes susato on Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:32 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Paul
Administrator


Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 1544

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

johannes susato wrote:
Paul wrote:
johannes susato wrote:
Schoner's planet orbs are surely not other than those (smaller ones) Lilly is giving, and here are those of
Ibn Ezra: The Moon 12, Venus 7


Right, so would Schoener have halved this to get a moeity? If so then this might explain why Schoner consider this void of course, the closest is that at 29 degrees it makes a square to Venus.

To get the moiety of both planets orbs Schöner would have added the orbs of the Moon and Venus as given above - and in my opinion the data are really mainstream - and would have the sum of 19; divided by 2 makes 9° 30´.

This same result you will get following Lilly's repeated wording "the moieties of both their orbs". The moiety ( = half) of the Moon's orb of 12 degrees is 6°, the moiety ( = the half) of the orb of Venus of 7 degrees is 3°30´, in total 9°30´.

To the best of my remembrance it was the French astrologer and physician Dariot using the term "la moitié" = the half for the first time.

The moiety, even tough it sounds so strange and arcane, does not affect the planets impact of the orbs at all unlike some authors seem to claim nowadays.

It is merely the fact of two calculi to say:
"add the orbs of both planets and take the half of it"
(12 + 7 = 19; 19 : 2 = 9 1/2)
or "take the halfs of the orbs of both planets and add them"
(12 : 2 = 6; 7 : 2 = 3 1/"; 6 + 3 1/2 = 9 1/2),
as it came in use at Lilly's times.

Johannes


Yeah I don't know why his definition and his example dont' seem to correlate correctly. I would have thought that he'd allow for the moeity of the other planets like most do but theorising that maybe he doesn't. I don't know, I should have paid more attention to the quote and the example as his definition seems at odds with his example unless he is meaning that the body of the other planet must fall within the orb of the Moon (not their orb falling within the Moon's).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pankajdubey



Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Delhi

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Curious.

Moon@23deg aries, Venus at 1degree cancer.
Moons moiety extends Upto 29 deg but Venus'moity regresses Upto28degree Gemini.

Moon is the fastest still unable to reach Venus without venus' backwards influence.

does it make any qualitative difference?
Moon is the fastest and still unable to reach Venus till it gets a helping hand from Venus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Clinton Soule



Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 471
Location: Reno, Nevada

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pankajdubey asked or said(?):

Moon@23deg aries, Venus at 1degree cancer.
Moons moiety extends Upto 29 deg but Venus'moity regresses Upto28degree Gemini.

Moon is the fastest still unable to reach Venus without venus' backwards influence.

does it make any qualitative difference?


I'm personally Not sure what you are asking by the style of your writing, could you clarify as you know what you wish to say but others as myself may Not understand you clearly?

But from what I think I do understand, is that you wish to know *if the moon is VOC but it is within orb of and moiety to a planet in another sign, like as you say 'Luna at 23 Aries making a sextile to Venus at 1 degree Cancer'*.

As I understand from debates or dialogues upon this very method of Lilly via the Angelicus Merlin Forum owned by Dorothy J. Kovach, Lilly did believe this and wrote upon it! However as stated below in another thread on Skyscript Forums, the participants in that discussion all had seemingly agreed that Lilly was in fact wrong upon this unlike 99 point something of what he taught in horary. And as I mentioned in the below quote it Did Not come together for me. However one must weigh more than the aspect to the lord of the matter like terms, face, etc., as one testimony alone is not a reliable indicator to give a verdict upon.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7413&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Quote:
However Lilly did state 'that if a planet is aspecting a planet within orb yet in another sign it would manifest'. . . . . . . .

However on Angelicus Merlin Forum, owned and moderated by the adept and dedicated Dorothy J. Kovach, this has been heavily argued against. As if Lilly was wrong on this method or technique that he taught in CA.

I asked a question years ago about a 7th house love matter, of a woman I wanted to be with, and have been in many incarnations past, and using this method of Lilly it was a Yes. However, years latter we still talk as friends, but we both know in this incarnation we are symbolicly 'incarcerated from each other'.


Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men know how little they know[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pankajdubey wrote:
Curious.

Moon@23deg aries, Venus at 1degree cancer.
Moons moiety extends Upto 29 deg but Venus'moity regresses Upto28degree Gemini.

Moon is the fastest still unable to reach Venus without venus' backwards influence.

does it make any qualitative difference?
Moon is the fastest and still unable to reach Venus till it gets a helping hand from Venus.


In this new example your calculation insinuates that Venus' orb is only 6 degrees and not 7 degrees.
Do you have a quotation for that, please?

But even if we accepted the orb of Venus to be only 6 degrees, the Moon is already (since 1°) in application to the sextile point of Venus at 1° of Taurus, the point of the beginning application being at 22° of Aries.

The moieties of the orbs are 6° for the Moon, and then (if you were right with this tight orb) 3° for Venus, in total 9°. 1° of Venus in Cancer minus 9° is 22° degrees in Gemini. Minus 60° for the sextile aspect = 22° of Aries.


Last edited by johannes susato on Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:34 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johannes susato



Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 1464

Posted: Mon Apr 08, 2013 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pankajdubey wrote:
does it make any qualitative difference?


Like Clinton I had problems with your question. Please take my text above as an affirmation of your judgement.

With Morin I would say, that there is a differnce in the meanings of the Moon being sextiled by Venus, and vice versa in the meanings of Venus being sextiled by the Moon.
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 3 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