Wroskopos's Blog

Celestial mathematics applied ©

Moon Void of Course (VOC) in Horary

Posted by Wroskopos on February 19, 2010

Moon is the most important body in Horary. She is the co-indicator of any question. As Moon moves only forward in its respective phenomenal movement, we can think of it as linear time-frame: past aspects give as insight on past events; future aspects predict future events. No aspects mean no events, which promptly brings us to the concept of a moon being void of course and its meanings.

What is a VOC Moon?

“Void of Course. Said of a planet which forms no complete aspect before leaving the Sign in which it is posited at birth. When the Moon is so placed it denies fruition to much of the good otherwise promised in the Figure. In Horary Astrology a planet so placed is said to indicate a person devoid of objective or purpose, hence one who abandons himself to aimless endeavor.” N.DeVore

“This is most usually in the Moon; in judgments doe you carefully observe whether she be void of course yea or no, you shall seldom see business go handsomely forward when she is so.” W.Lilly

Any planet can be void of course but, it is especially noticeable with Moon and in addition she is the most important body in Horary so, it makes perfect sense that many authors paid extra attention to this condition. When moon perfects no major (Ptolemaic) aspects with another body until she leaves the sign she is in, we call it a Void of Course Moon (VOC). We do not take into account aspects to parts or fixed stars or house cusps; only towards the sun and the planets.

A word of caution here, moieties of orbs do not count when Moon is at the end of a sign!
There is one exception I found where we can allow moieties: when the Moon and body in moiety are in strong mutual reception.

In general, Moon can be Void of Course in any part of a sign; in its beginning, its middle or its ending and each position holds a different meaning.
In the beginning and middle of signs, we allow moieties of aspects. In simple words, look at your aspect grid; is Moon currently applying a Ptolemaic aspect to another body within moiety of orbs (aspect tolerance)? If yes, she is not VOC. If you see no aspect in the grid but you can see that later on Moon will make at least one aspect – she is just not making one right now – she is *temporarily* VOC. (Remember: this does not apply when our Moon is in the end of a sign; here you ignore moieties and you are after perfection of the aspect).

Sometimes Moon is VOC through the majority of a sign. For example if planets are all gathered in the first 5 degrees, moon will be void of course from 5 01’ to 29 59’. In such occasions, she is considered “feral”; a wild, ferocious and unfavorable Moon (unless your Horary is for a lost animal, where would make sense to have Moon in a feral condition and would not be an ill omen on itself).

This is one of the most important considerations before judgment; don’t ignore it, as it actually holds an answer of its own. Can you judge a chart with VOC Moon? Yes you can! It is a consideration; not a stricture against judgment.

Performance of VOC according to authors

Alan Leo believed it “denotes in general no success in the question” but he was rather short about it.
For William Lilly, moon “may” perform even if VOC if she lies inside Taurus Cancer, Sagittarius and Pisces. “All matters go hardly on (except the principal significators be very strong) when the moon is void of course; yet somewhat she performs if void of course and be in either Taurus Cancer, Sagittarius or Pisces”.
(Why those four signs? Because they are where Moon or Jupiter (the greater benefic) are strong by being domicile or exalted).
I agree with Frawley that by “things go hardly on”, Lilly meant with hardships, with trouble and not that things will not proceed at all but, only if she is in a sign she can perform and the main significators are strong.
Lilly put in his own words what Guido Bonatus meant with “Behold the moon if she be void of course, for then it signifies an impediment to the thing in question, it will not come to a good end, nor be accomplished; but the querent shall be forced to desist with shame and loss” and “(moon VOC) signifies that the thing enquired after shall scarce ever come to a good end and not without much labor, sorrow and trouble; unless ruler of ascendant or quesited be in a very good condition, then it may be hindered but not wholly frustrated”.
Abraham Ibn Ezra was more straightforward, “if the Moon is moving by itself, it indicates any futile thing, and it signifies that any thing which the asker requests cannot possibly occur”.

What if VOC Moon is one of our main significators?

Makes the situation or person idle. No actions or no fruitful actions. If she be peregrine and VOC, there is lack of will and purpose, scattered energies. If she is debilitated and VOC, denotes lack of happiness, erratic action, tiresome attempts to no avail and trouble. If Moon is essentially dignified but VOC, there is will but the circumstances are not favorable for action, or that the situation is already concluded and our quesited is happily idling now. You can judge which is the case by the last aspect of the Moon and its house position.

Meanings of VOC Moon

If your void of course Moon appears in the beginning of a sign, it means the situation is still at its beginning and things will delay starting their course of action.
If your void of course Moon is in the middle of a sign, the situation is currently under a halt, expect delay and idling before events start happening again.
If your Moon is void of course at the end of a sign, it offers you the answer to your question, which can be:
– Nothing happens (which can be a positive thing depending on the question)
– No significant changes
– Unfruitful actions, futile attempts
– Things will proceed slowly and with difficulty
– Efforts met with shame and loss
– Bad, tiresome, useless business
– Conclusion has already occurred


“In my chart moon is VOC until it changes sign but applies to another body within orbs. Will it perform?”
No, it will not. It has to perfect the aspect before changing sign. Simply being in moiety, even in conjunction, does not complete the action promised.

“My question is whether we divorce and Moon is VOC? What will happen?
Nothing. No action, no divorce. The situation remains stale for now.

“I have a job interview next week, did a chart and moon is VOC. Will I get the job?”
Not with that interview. They may reschedule, you may miss the appointment or, you may go and do the interview but they tell you to reschedule yet another interview.

“In my chart moon is VOC but my main significators are applying with a major aspect. Will it work?”
It depends. Check whether the Moon is in a sign she can perform and whether your significators are strongly dignified.

© 2010 All rights reserved – Με επιφύλαξη παντός νόμιμου δικαιώματος

32 Responses to “Moon Void of Course (VOC) in Horary”

  1. Dear Wroskopos,

    thank you for this posting. I just have one comment and one question, if you don’t mind🙂

    The definition of feral is as follows: If the Sun or the Moon or planets make no aspect throughout the WHOLE SIGN where it is placed, it is called feral. So if there are planets in the first 5 degrees of the sign, the Moon aspects them and therefore it is not feral.

    When you state:”A word of caution here, moieties of orbs do not count when Moon is at the end of a sign!” could you please tell me who came up with this theory? I wonder what the exact definition of ‘end of a sign’ is, in this respect?


  2. Wroskopos said

    The first part about feral, came directly from J. Frawley’s “horary textbook”. Who perhaps(though I can’t know this for certain) used the definition out of DeVore’s “encynclopedia of astrology”.
    Until now, all I knew about feral were the degrees relation and thank you for mentioning it is a whole sign theme so, I look it up.

    The second part, is a conclusion of mine. Is a standalone for VOC Moon and whether she performs or not. As ‘end of sign’ I use the 29 degrees and 59 minutes.

    Through practice, I noticed horary delineations kept failing to provide the result promised by moieties alone (in voc moon cases), even in conjunctions through signs. That intrigued me. If it doesn’t work all the time, it just plainly doesn’t work or has a “catch” we don’t know yet. So, I had to find where the hypothesis was wrong or lacking.
    Some times moieties work, some do not and I want rules that work at a 100%. As I kept checking charts I noticed there always were strong receptions where moon voc was involved and moieties worked. Might have been a coincidence happening to charts I read and saw, which is open for further investigation for promising moieties when moon is typically voc.

    Thank you for the comment! (though I am not sure whether I understood or if I answered your second question well ^^).

  3. Dear Wroskopos,

    what JF says regarding feral is:”Occasionally the Moon will travel all the way through a sign without making an aspect. At such time it is feral, like a wild beast.” (THTB, p66)
    All the way through means all 30 degrees…..

    Let’s have a look at VoC now. The definition is that a Planet is VoC, if it does not form any aspect with any other Planet before entering the next sign. Now we have to decide how we define “forming an aspect”. Modern astrology considers aspects to be valid only if they are exact. Traditional astrology, which horary is, of course, based on, recognises an aspect to be valid if it is exact, perfect, partile or platic. This makes a hughe difference in the meaning of VoC. When you wrote on twitter this morning that Moon would be VoC in Aries, the moderns would have agreed with you, while the traditionalists would have said no, as the Moon formed a platic aspect with Mars.

    If we look at the famous chart “When her husband, who is imprisoned, shall be delivered”, in Lilly’s Christian Astrology, we will see that Lilly did not count the Moon in 29*10′ Aquarius as VoC, because she is within orb of a sextile with Saturn and a trine with Jupiter, and judged accordingly .

    Lilly was a great follower of Bonatti and both stated that the Moon would be void of course when not joined to any Planet by body or aspect, which means joined within orb, of course.


  4. PS: I quoted out of my head, here is the exact quote from Bonatti, Book of Astronomy, trans. Dykes, Cazimi Press, 2007, p269, The 5th consideration, condition of the Moon:
    “The tenth is when she is void of course, namely joined to none of the planets by body or by aspect; or she is uncivilised or feral, which happens when she is void of course and is in a place where she has no dignity.”


  5. Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by wroskopos: VOC Moon in Horary: http://bit.ly/bWKBuT (with a tip of my own)…

  6. Wroskopos said

    Hm, Frawley is strict with his aspects, he refuses trines outside the same triplicity, he refuses conjunctions through adjacent signs, etc. He would refuse there is a sextile between a planet in Aquarius and one in Taurus as those signs are in square. So, with that argument, we should eliminate both the sextile (in orb) and trine (in orb) as cancer is not in trine to aquarius either.
    Which makes it tough to consider he meant the whole 30 degrees, unless we limit the void moon to inconjunct houses in whole signs (a system he doesn’t actually use to draw his horoscopic houses in that book) and we must discard the moon sextiles saturn and trines jupiter by moieties, because with that house system, they are not in trine, or sextile.

    When I first read that passage I thought he was exaggerating for the sake of stressing out a point . Now though, as you explained this important detail, I have second thoughts about this. If we take it for granted, we can not have moieties but by whole signs affiliations alone.

    I do not agree with the “of course” in the ‘joined with’. Is vague on itself, can be taken either way, to me a union happens when it happens exactly; an engagement is not marriage. Worth to keep in mind is the definition on the feral Moon as Bonatti put it “voc and no dignity (essential or accidental)” and thank you for retrieving and reciting it here!
    If my memory doesn’t fail me, apart the moderns, Gadbury would also agree against moieties.

    The chart of Lilly’s that you mention, is one of my favorites considering my theory. Moon sees Saturn from his favorite domicile, Saturn sees Moon from exaltation. Strong mutual reception (mixed in this case). Moon performs thanks to that, granting value to the moiety of the sextile.

    ps. We must have had some kind of telepathy, because this exact chart was in my mind the whole morning.

  7. Dear Wroskopos

    The problem I have here is that I am following Lilly and not JF! Without going into much detail you will know that there are considerable differences between the views of both, even if one’s success is based on the other one’s textbook.

    Bottom line, for me, is that VoC is a consideration before judgment. (That is why I wanted to quote it corectly, because it is so important)This means that Lilly probably would not have gone much further, if he would have judged the Moon being VoC in this horary. He did not judge it to be VoC, because he allowed orbs and worked with partile aspects.

    As you mention Gadbury, I would invite you to subscribe to the latest issue of The Tradition journal http://www.thetraditionjournal.com/ and read the article “Monster of Ingratitude”, written by Sue Ward and me. After that you might understand my view of Gadbury’s expertise as an astrologer.


  8. PS: To back my theory up, here a quote from a 15th century astrologer, Johannes Schoener:

    “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.”

    Opusculum Astrologicum, pt2, canon XXIII


    • Connie said

      I’m a few years late to the party so I hope this doesn’t fall on deaf ears because no one is able to read it. I also take my chances, since Mercury is void of course, right now, and use this opportunity, to take advantage of the void quality and benefits. There is a purpose for everything under the heavens, including void periods.

      You left out an important part of the quote, Mr. Stockinger. The 2nd half of the quote of Lilly’s predecessor, Johannes Schöner reads, “Take for example the following: If there is the Moon conjunct Jupiter in Sagittarius, and after her separation from Jupiter there is no planet in Sagittarius to which she can be joined by the moiety of orb or of the ray of any planet which she can aspect, in that case the Moon is said to be void of course until she leaves Sagittarius and is joined to any planet in body or in aspect. But we do not observe this only in the Moon. 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.” Moon is within moiety of orb to Saturn. so obviously, he is not considering moiety of orb canceling the void state of Moon.

      Now, in the Reading seige by the Earle, CA II, Ch. LXVI, Lilly’s advise is for the Earle to take advantage of the natural instincts and guard being down, Moon and Venus, ruling the opposition, being void of course. He said they should secretly undermine (Scorpio rising) the chiefs (Sun), saying, “…set division amongst the principall Officers, and to incense them against their Officer in Chiefe…” One potential use for Leo Moon void would be to address loyalties, or in this case, undermine them. Then, after that void ends, he advises the Earle can take control, which he did.

      Kindest Regards

  9. Wroskopos said

    Dear Peter,
    you are very persuasive and I adore eloquent arguments. We are on the same page on voc being an important consideration we shouldn’t ignore and we both follow Lilly more than newer astrologers. Lilly is after all, still THE master of horary.

    I will stick on my concept about mutual reception. I truly think it may be the key of moon’s ability to perform (more than the 4 signs). I think moon was not voc in that chart (this we both agree) but for another reason: it was mutually recepted (on this we don’t seem to agree but I am doing my best to persuade you ^^).

    For everybody interested, D.Houlding has a thorough list on quotes about voc here: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/voc.html

    • Dear Wroskopos

      As we have agreed now that the Moon is not VoC in Lilly’s chart, let’s look at the point of mutual reception. Of course I agree with you that there is mutual reception between Moon and Saturn, and once she changes sign, mutual reception continues! This mutual reception is certainly beneficial and encourages a positive judgment, but MR certainly does not have any effect on the fact if a Planet is VoC or not.


  10. Wroskopos said

    Correction: was mutually received (not …recepted)

  11. Dear Wroskopos,

    Having established our mutual fondness of William Lilly’s teachings, let us have a another look at the Master’s opus magnum:

    Lilly’s definition of VoC, CA, p112:

    “A Planet is void of course, when he is separated from a Planet, nor does forthwith, during his being in that Sign, apply to any other: This is most usually in the Moon;…”

    Note the word APPLY here, instead of perfect.

    And here about reception, CA, p112:

    “Reception is when two Planets that are significators in any Question or matter, are in each other’s dignity; as Sun in Aries, and Mars in Leo; here is reception of these two Planets by Houses; and certainly this is the strongest and best of all receptions. It may be triplicity, term or face, or any essential dignity …”

    Nothing about prevention of VoC here….


  12. Wroskopos said

    Dear Peter,

    We both agree on the importance of this consideration.
    I am fond of Gadbury though, even if he is not my no 1 (Lilly is). However, I don’t rely solely on Lilly. I do not accept moieties unless there is significant reception.
    I understand your standpoint and I believe you see this as misconception. A student of horary will (and should) read Lilly thoroughly but, in the end, one should practice the concepts given and see what works and when.
    You may see my post as misleading to new enthusiasts? A student will get his facts right through solid study but, this is a point I found useful to stress: moon voc will perform in moiety only if there is significant reception with the planet she is in moiety, irrelevantly of which sign she is in (assuming there is no other serious hindrance from considerations).

    As far as I have seen, moieties without perfecting the aspect before moon changes sign, render the moon “fully” voc (with sole exception strong mutual reception). Action is destroyed. Moieties alone, render the moon void of course.
    I have seen the same to apply on planets that fail to complete the promised aspect (but are within moiety) because one of them has to change sign, or when moon changes sign before they perfect; if they are – strongly – mutually received, they perform.
    If not, moiety is proven void of meaning.

  13. Dear Wroskopos
    Let’s take it all slowly, one step at the time.
    First of all, let’s look at the definition of aspects, orbs and moiety. During the period before an aspect perfects, the two Planets involved in this aspect are in application. This is called “to be within orb of aspect”. Unlike in modern astrologer’s thinking, the orb always belongs to the Planet and not to the aspect. Now it is, of course, half the orb of each of the two Planets which must be in contact for the aspect to be valid. This is called moiety. Each Planet’s orb involved in the aspect is divided by two and added to find out whether the two Planets are in orb or not. (moiety P1 + moiety P2 = orb).
    For example if Moon applies to Saturn, we add the moiety of Saturn (5*) to the moiety of Moon (6*15’) which gives us an orb of 11*15’. If we let the Moon be in 3* Cancer and Saturn in 10* Libra, it shows that Moon is applying to a square with Saturn, as the distance between them is inside the orb of 11*15’.

    Now if you stick with traditional thinking, you have to accept that Planets have orbs. All the time! And therefore they have halves of orbs, which is called moiety. All the time! Moiety does not go away, never, ever.

    If we try and put it together now, we see that Lilly defines VoC as: “A Planet is void of course, when he is separated from a Planet, nor does forthwith, during his being in that Sign, apply to any other: This is most usually in the Moon;…”

    He does not say anything about moiety disappearing at the end of signs. Moiety belongs to Planets, it is always there. A sign boundary can not influence that.

    You wrote: “moon voc will perform in moiety only if there is significant reception with the planet she is in moiety, irrelevantly of which sign she is in.”
    According to our definitions this is a contradiction in terms. If you allow the Moon to have an orb, and therefore moiety and she is in an applying aspect with a slower Planet, who has his own moiety, than she can’t be VoC. Reception does not come into play here.

    If you look again at your above statement: “I do not accept moieties unless there is significant reception”, you will realise that you are mixing apples and pears. Mutual reception happens, by definition, if one particular Planet is in the dignity of another, and the latter is in the dignity of the former. If this is happens, for example, between domiciles, it is a very strong indicator the matter propounded will have a positive outcome. Mutual reception (apples) itself does not have anything to do with and can not influence a Planets moiety (pears).

    I hope I have made it all a bit clearer now🙂


  14. Wroskopos said

    Dear Peter,

    you were clear all along; you like moieties and you believe they work. I don’t (unless in strong mutual reception).

    When I use moieties, I too go by the ancient definition and not by the modern style initiated by Alan Leo (iirc) and afterwards generally accepted by all modern astrologers in the field of natal-psychological astrology that became so fashionable in the 20th century.

    Moiety as a word derives from the medieval English moite (and from the French moitie) which means ‘middle’. The idea behind them is that a solar body emits energy (influence) around its center (which just like physics is considered a geometrical point for uses in calculations).
    Like electromagnetic fields around a charged core, for reason of easier depiction and calculations, we accept that field having a perfect spherical shape (which is not accurate but it doesn’t hinder our calculus).

    Likewise, celestial bodies emit in spherical orbs. Astrologers considered that sphere of influence to be proportional to the size and/or strength of the celestial body, calculated the diameter of that orb for each of the main bodies (sun, moon, planets) used in astrology. The center of such a diameter is of course the body itself.
    Now, they used the radius of the said diameter. To calculate combined moieties and see if two bodies are within influence (within aspect), all we have to do, is add their respective radii and see whether the arc distance between the bodies is less or equal to their combined radii, in respect to one of the major Ptolemaic aspects (conjunction, trine, sextile, square, opposition).

    It is an interesting astronomical detail that for fixed stars they calculated glow and not orbs – a practice still in use in astronomy.

    Accepting full use on moieties hasn’t prove its value in charts I have seen. They do not work. I am not in contradiction, think chemistry or physics: if we get 2 charged particles, they will interact. If we take two neutral particles, they will not interact. Mutual reception give us exactly that: charge.

  15. Dear Wroskopos,

    You wrote: “When I use moieties, I too go by the ancient definition…”

    But that is exactly the point I am trying to make. If you stick with the tradition, you have to accept that there is no indication in the texts that any traditional astrologer ever stated that a) moieties do not count at the end of a sign, and b) that moieties are allowed (quoting your own definition here) “ when the Moon and body in moiety are in strong mutual reception”.

    If you think that this is a new rule that you invented, that’s fine; but it does not tie in with traditional teachings.

    If we look at Lilly’s “Christian Astrology”, we see that he provides the student with four charts wherein we find the Moon at the end of signs, aspecting across signs. Obviously Lilly, who certainly did thousands of horaries, managed without any new rules and was happy with the traditional rules and methods, allowing moiety, VoC according to definition, etc.
    I do not know on how many charts you have tested your theories and may be you will write a new chapter in horary astrology. Still there is my original question: how, in respect of your theorie about the collapsing of moieties, do you define “end of a sign”? You said that you would use 29*59’, but that means that a Planet in 29*58’ would be allowed its moiety, if I understand you correctly?

    In your last response you are drawing parallels with modern chemistry and physics, which is fine in itself. But again, from a purely traditional point of view this is of little use. If one sticks with the traditional astrological teachings, one has to embrace the worldview that comes with it. Lilly was the last astrologer who had a thorough understanding of the Hermetic tradition. His world view was deeply influenced by Renaissance thinking, Neoplatonism, etc. Gadbury was already of a new generation, but that is another story. We have to try and see the world with the eyes of Lilly, et al, if we truly want to understand and practice their astrology. So I would, for example, recommend to read Al Kindi’s “De Radiis Stellicis” (On the Stellar Rays) for a better understanding of astrological optics, to name only one source amongst many.

    You said: “I am fond of Gadbury though, even if he is not my no 1 (Lilly is). However, I don’t rely solely on Lilly. I do not accept moieties unless there is significant reception.”

    With all due respect, at the moment you do not count Lilly as your number one astrologer, you count yourself to be nr.1, as you think you know better than he did.


  16. Wroskopos said

    Dear Peter,

    I wrote “When I use moieties, I too go by the ancient definition…”. ‘When’ I use them as in “if they have the receptions then I use them”, “the times I use them” and so on. It was not meant as “I always use them”. I stressed out I have seen one too many times, moieties failing bad.

    You wrote “at the moment you do not count Lilly as your number one astrologer, you count yourself to be nr.1, as you think you know better than he did”;
    When I wrote “Lilly is still my no 1”, you read “Lilly is not my no1”?
    Secondly, when someone disputes a thesis, is it merely to disprove the value of the thesis and its writer and place oneself in the position of authority? Every time someone discuses, analyzes, adds or subtracts to a thesis, it is a direct ego battle? Someone has to be better and someone has to be worse? Everyone that has a question or a different view is a rebel without a cause in a fierce egomaniac attempt to prevail in the nebulae of 10th house?
    I am absolutely against such approaches. Do not count me with the bunch that give arguments with sole purpose to promote themselves over someone else.
    Every time someone has different views of yours, you feel threatened on a subconscious level?
    Do not project on me, please.
    Arguments are a means to attain the Truth.

    Lilly is one of the great masters but is neither perfect nor he knows all, when he writes ‘moon MAY perform in such and such signs’, it is not good enough for me (it may be for you – though I wonder why it would). It “may” sounds exactly like “I have no clue whether they will perform or not”. In other words, he didn’t know (or he knew but never shared the tip).
    Should a scholar leave that as is, or should one try to eliminate the “may”s from astrological rules and definitions? Should a scholar “believe, not investigate” or “believe not, investigate”?
    I am not at ease with rules that do not work. I am not satisfied with rules that work *sometimes*. I am happy with rules that work “under certain circumstances”.

    I do draw parallels to science in my whole study of astrology. Unlike what I think you believe, it IS the traditional way. At least as far as ancient Greeks approached it.
    And science does not clash with some esoteric dogmas (but this discussion is really of a private nature and not for this blog).

    Considering the “end of a sign”, I must have misunderstood what you asked. The “end of a sign” is its very last second of arc…Moon is void of course from the second she perfects no aspect until she changes sign. Moieties exist but that tells us nothing if they can not perform. Moieties do not go out the window when a planet is at the end of a sign; however if there is no strong reception, they are rendered useless. They do not work.

  17. Dear Wroskopos

    You are absolutely right, let’s stick to the facts. All I say about the question of who is nr.1 is another quote from Frawley’s THTB: “This study demands humility. You can not remake astrology in your own image.You may find much here that differs from what you have previously learned, ideas that you may hold dear.”

    Anyway, you say that you draw on the approach of the ancient Greeks. Can you quote one single traditional Greek source to me, stating that Moon is “VoC from the second she perfects no aspect until she changes sign” (your quote)?
    I just happened to read Dr Dykes’ new “Persian Nativities” vol 1, today, wherein he translates Masha’allah (p25): “But the Moon is said [to be] solitary whenever she applies to neither fortunate ones nor the malevolents with her own body, nor does she regard any [star] from the trigon, tetragon, hexagon, or opposition” The footnote states that he must have drawn this from Rhetorius Ch.39, because in Ch.112 and in other Hellenistic authors is added: “within the next 30 degrees”. Dr Dykes adds that this fuller definition makes a void in course Moon extraordinarily rare.
    The point I want to make here is that obviously Masha’allah and Hellenistic authors are talking about application and not perfection in the case of the VoC phenomenon.

    About end of sign: my initial question still remains after your statement in the original article: ” A word of caution here, moieties of orbs do not count when Moon is at the end of a sign”. According to your last post the end of a sign is in 20*59’59”. Is this where moieties of orbs do not count, or is it earlier?


  18. Wroskopos said

    Dear Peter,

    we must have some mercury retrograde in between us. I explained the view so many times I feel repeating it won’t change a thing. I am puzzled on what is that still puzzles you. Eventually I will have to find a better way to explain when inspiration stops evading me.

    I didn’t exactly say I draw on their approach. I was referring to them in relation to scientific approach. You could say I meant they too approached astrology in a scientific way giving little credit to happenings of random Godly will (though every now and then we can see they remained god-fearing/respecting but certainly not to the degree other civilizations did – before and after ancient Greeks).

    I agree this study requires humility but also demands an inquiring mind. It is essential we learn from the wisdom of sages and scientists that lived long before out time. At the same time, one must question everything by putting it to test and find its validity through it. Even mistakes have value for this purpose.

  19. Dear Wroskopos

    It seems that we have explored all avenues of trying to convince each other and have, for the moment at least, to agree to disagree.

    As I said in another place, it is the result that counts, in the end. One can argue about the technicalities forever, but in the end it is the amount of correctly judged horaries one is recognised by.
    You think that you have invented a new rule which eases uncertainty of judgment in some horary charts. All I was trying to say is, that horary, in my opinion, is fine in the way it was traditionally used and one doesn’t need new rules. Furthermore I think that the traditional definition of Moon VoC works fine, and, amongst other considerations, taking the positive influence of mutual reception into account in one’s judgment, one does not need to create rules of moiety disappearing at the end of signs.

    I do not wish this to extend into a general lecture in horary practice, but I will give you one example. You said that Lilly would be undecided when he states that the Moon may perform in certain signs. You take this as an example of the fallibility of the man and his horary judgment in general. In my opinion his statement has to be interpreted in the way that the Moon’s performance is depending on many other factors in the chart as well. Weighing all these up, the practitioner will have to decide if she will perform or not, as with other factors taken into consideration, she may or may not perform in these signs. I know that the modern approach to horary is one of keeping it all as simple as possible and some modern horary practitioners are encouraged to only look at significator and co-significator, etc. Lilly took many more factors into consideration, as his table for accidental dignity and debility shows.


  20. […] about definition and validity of the void of course Moon on another astrological web log, https://wroskopos.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/moon-void-of-course-voc-in-horary/, I thought it to be a good idea to have another look at William Lilly’s views on the subject and […]

  21. Wroskopos said

    Dear Peter,

    I did not say Lilly “would be” undecided. He appears when he says it “may” perform. I do not take it as fallibility though, I am inclined to think he knew exactly when it performs but thought of it as too trivial to mention, expecting the student to comprehend the basic laws behind delineation.
    I do not see fallibility in Lilly in general. There are parts we all wish he had expanded on more but, fallibility? In a few of his chart he neglects pointing out some points probably, as he might have thought of them trivial or “goes without saying”/blatant ones, deserving no more expansion.
    Perhaps a “I (Lilly) have already explained *this*, why be repetitive, the student who pays attention will understand”.

    In https://wroskopos.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/starting-with-horary-%E2%80%93-the-basic-steps-2/ I had written “How can one claim a higher expertise or intelligence and choose to ignore the aphorisms made by far better brains?”.
    I will be the last one to discard the old and ancients that practiced astrology. Questioning and trying to take it one step further is what any student of any subject should do. In good measurement. I invented nothing of course, only *think* I stressed something too common and too self-evident to be specifically noted by many authors.

    What I keep from our discussion – besides the thrill of an intellectual interaction – is the fact I did not word moieties as they should have been to be correctly understood without causing misconceptions. One day I must reword it properly so moieties stop magically *disappearing* at the end of a sign.🙂

    For the readers, further discussion with emphasis on Lilly’s rules, on Peter’s blog: http://starsandstones.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/void-of-course/

    • Dear Wroskopos

      You wrote: “One day I must reword it properly so moieties stop magically *disappearing* at the end of a sign.”

      Yes, this was one of my points, indeed. I am glad that you liked our little discussion and that you got something out of it, in the end. I am sure that we will have some more interesting discussions about other topics in the future.


  22. […] Moon Void of Course (VOC) in Horary […]

  23. mebel jati jepara…

    […]Moon Void of Course (VOC) in Horary « Wroskopos's Blog[…]…

  24. tonia said

    if a question is does he likes my personality and moon is 29 degree moon is voc so means that he doesn’t???in my chart there is the last aspect applying moon trine uranus

  25. Heya i am for the first time here. I came across
    this board and I in finding It really helpful & it helped me out a lot.
    I’m hoping to provide one thing back and help others like you aided me.

  26. bard said

    I asked a question, ” will the the child mine” when moon is voc and via combusta. so does it say that the chile to be born is not mine ?

  27. Mebel Jati said

    fantastic points altogether, you simply gained a new reader.

    What might you suggest about your put up that you simply made some
    days in the past? Any positive?

  28. website said

    What’s up to every body, it’s my first visit of this website;
    this webpage contains awesome and truly excellent stuff in favor of readers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: