Thanks Geoffrey,

You have put a soul in this discussion.

If the planets are just moving around some fixed point, some faster and some slower and their varying speeds are astronomical phenomenon, then , why put the human and horary in it.

I think,in olden times, these terms were were construed to convey a design or purpose.
Unfortunately, not only the dogma has changed but the language has changed as well.

If we are going to discuss traditional astrology circa 1600 AD or hellenistic then we have to get into how these words were used then and in what context.Both, the orthography and etymology of the language can change.

According to OED:

The word apply circa 1500-1600 AD was used to mean steer.

verb trans. Bring (a ship) to land; direct, steer. L16?E17.

Spenser To whom his course he hastily applide.
W. Raleigh Light things apply themselves upwards.

and in its intransitive form:

verb intrans Have a practical bearing have relevance

By the next century or late 18th: it became= refer to:
()

or

verb intrans : Come or be close,come into or be in contact

PD

pankajdubey wrote:
If we are going to discuss traditional astrology circa 1600 AD or hellenistic then we have to get into how these words were used then and in what context.Both, the orthography and etymology of the language can change.

That is exactly right.

And if we rely on a computer to give an English translation of a 13th century Latin text, which itself was derived from a 10th century Arabic text - and which in turn was a rendering of a 1st century Greek text..... I would suggest that there is a good chance that the cultural context subtleties of the original Greek author would have been mangled or lost en route.

That is why I stick to 17th century English texts. It is not too difficult to get a handle on what they actually meant and to understand the cultural contest of the writer's syntax. Too, that was a time when astrology was very popular and astrologers could make a living from their astrological prognostications. But there was consequently a hard-nosed financial imperative that the methods and techniques they used had to work and work well, or they were out of business! The books written by those astrologers - particularly the example charts given by authors writing after many years practice as working astrologers, such as those by Lilly, Blagrave, Thrasher and Gadbury's later books - are then a distillation of what they found worked for them.

Geoffrey

Johannes,

Horatio, obviously you follow one of the two great directions of defining void of course as it is defined by Ibn Ezra and Frawley, for example.

(emphasized by me)

I follow myself . I think the better word should be "Change in Perspective/Circumstances", however, Change in Heart seems to be better translation of Urdu word ??? ?????.

Johannes said via this thread at the beginning, page one of this thread:

..... "an apparently VOC Moon" can only be a Moon who is called VOC by all - at least by the vast majority of all - authors, the choice of your expression seems a little bit problematic.
Or is in fact the Moon in your example completely separated from another planet or his aspect (i.e. out of the half of the sum of both their orbs = the moiety of both their orbs = the moieties of both their orbs) and does she not enter into an application to another Planet or his aspect as long as she is in her present sign?
After all we know in practice there is only very little room for the Moon to be called VOC by all defintitions of VOC we know.

And that has to be why Lilly said that '...if a planet is aspecting another yet the other planet is already in another sign yet the orbs and moieties are in range and the two perfect they are Not in VOC'.

And just because my own horary failed this test and years ago the held consensus was by Contemporary artists on Angelicus Merlin Horary Forum owned and moderated by the adept Dorothy J. Kovach, most were adept professionals, the consensus being that Lilly was wrong. For as we know unless we put in the time to diligently study the horoscope using terms, face, etc., and go the extra mile and utilize Lilly's tedious point system we might find that there were testimonies other than the lord of the matter which spoke loudly of why Lilly's method on this concept had failed.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men truly know how little they know

CA-II p399 Sir William Waller,
This charts fits the condition that Moon has not seperated from combined moiety or orbs to the planet preceeding but it is not within the combined moiety of orbs of the planet ahead-viz, Saturn.
Moon 8 deg Tau-Saturn 19 deg 40 min.
Lilly totally ignores this as a case a Moon being VOC.

So, the logic is that the Moon is not VOC because it has not fully separated yet from the previous aspect so it could not be VOC.

If we accept this logic, then, moon can only be well and truly VOC if it has separated from and also does not apply to another planet within the combined moiety of their respective orbs.

or, Lilly was a poet and he used his poetic license in astrology.

Is it the eagerness to prove Lilly to be a poet which makes you err about the star positions?

Saturn is 11?59 Aries
Moon 8 0 Taurus
Venus 19 40 Taurus

These can be seen very clearly by your fine reproduction of the original chart. Thanks for that!

So which chart's judgement of Lilly do you really doubt, PD?

Johannes

In the chart above the Moon is separating from the Sextile of Mars who is in 1? Pisces and thus the Moon is still in separation for about three degrees and a half.
If you really want to discuss the chart above, then the problem is not with the Moon to be void of course as she is not void of course, but with the application to the conjunction of Venus, she being still out of orb of the Moon. Yet Lilly affirms an application (Lilly, CA, p. 399):

"for you may see the Moon is distant from Venus eleven degrees,
but withall is in her swift motion, and encreasing in light, all
which were arguments of our success, and the Enemies rout-
ing;"

and the Moon is very strong in her exaltation.

Johannes

Its clearly written in the middle of the chart: Moon separated from Mars, (1 Pisces) then from Jupiter (2 Taurus), and applied to Venus (19 Taurus) then to Mercury (21 Pisces)

With Lilly's orbs, the Moon will never go VOC

Saturn at 11 Aries is inconjunct..

Geoffrey

When we start dealing with moiety of orbs and this extends ahead and behind,then, platick aspect is still persisting in a separating from partile state.

I thought Lilly ,like his protege Coley is following this.

If this is not the case then we have a very strange situation where a planets orb of influence is very mobile.
A faster planets anterior moiety is functional and the slower planet's posterior moiety is function and soon as they are partile this contact is lost !
Clinton's original question was about a situation where a planet is still in contact within the combined moiety of orbs of the separating planet but moon does not make any aspect for the whole sign.

I could not find an example like that in CA II, this one came closest to that idea.


PD

Hello PD

Are those strange charts confusing you? I always print out a modern version of these old charts.


l

When we start dealing with moiety of orbs and this extends ahead and behind,then, platick aspect is still persisting in a separating from partile state.

I thought Lilly, like his protege Coley is following this.

Is that not what is happening in this chart?

Lilly does not mention that the Moon is VOC, and it is not mentioned in the middle of his chart. Had he thought the Moon would go VOC before applying to Venus, he would have written "? a ? ? a ? ? ad vac et ? ? et ? ?"

Geoffrey[/quote]

Thanks Geoffrey,

I thought so but I wanted Johannes to say that

PD

james_m said:

clinton i am curious if someone can reject anything that lilly has said especially if it doesn't comply with what he did? or is lilly the final word and always will be the final word on any approach to horary astrology?

James_M, every movement or trade has their icons or mentors, and as astrology is according to Lilly a 9th house type matter, it is along the lines of faith or a religion just as science is. Is not Science always testing out accepted facts to find much latter after much controversial weighing of different variables that facts later become accepted hypothesis as a new proven fact is accepted in it?s place? Astrology as a faith and science is right in there as we are testing out these writers of horary constantly.

Since Lilly placed science, religion, and astrology in the 9th, one can see all faiths have their mentors. The astrologer Abraham was the patriarchal ancestor of three major religions, then Moses become the icon of Judaism, and Muhammed become the icon of Islam yet borrowed from many of the same stories as the Hebrew descendants since they share a somewhat similar genealogy. The Piscean Master, one who has transformed the western world of thought even if it has been largely confused and with much deception as most religions of the past age if the Mayan calendar is correct, is the mentor of Christiandom as Lilly states in the following.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/letter.html

Stand fast oh, man ! to thy God: then consider thy own nobleness; how all created things, both present and to come, were for thy sake created; nay, for thy sake God became man: thou art that creature, who, being conversant with Christ, livest and reignest above the heavens, and sits above all power and authority. How many pre-eminences, privileges, advantages, hath God bestowed on thee? thou rangest above the heavens by contemplation, conceivest the motion and magnitude of the stars: thou talkest with angels, yea, with God himself: thou hast all creatures within thy dominion, and keepest the devils in subjection.

Just as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, North American Plain's Indian Pipe related religions, Aborigines in Australia, etc., all have their iconic mentors that will be revered by humanity forever by their followers.

Lilly a giant Taurean mountain of knowledge as solid as 'the Rock of Gibraltar', a Man of his age being a Piscean asc., in the Piscean age will remain the horary icon more than the Greek Philosophers are to philosophy forever.

But answering your question, just as the Piscean Master told of the astrologer Moses had made mistakes, we can see how Lilly has made a few. But typically it is his students whom frequently misunderstand him and go off on feral tangents because they may think they have found a flaw in Lilly's methods and publish their own opinions contrary to Lilly which may latter be proved invalid. Like John Frawley?s writing that he doesn?t ??necessarily take the rectification of horoscopes seriously..?; where Lilly and myself see it as very important.

James, in horary in this lifetime my body will not allow me to live long enough to become as great as Lilly, but yes I'm certain Lilly has some flaws but maybe more within his natal astrology, just as the astrologer Moses raised by Egypt?s royal family was said to have made an error by the Piscean Master from what is written!

Beloved Forum I purposely did Not wish to answer this question while Luna was in the sign of the 12th house of the Moon even if I loved Moon cjt Zeus(Jupiter), so I waited for a good aspect to Falcifer.

Clinton Garrett Soule

Wise men truly know how little they know