I guess it depends on our definitions,...
Not really....Sun can never aspect Moon, Mercury or Venus, but they may aspect Sun. Even when Mercury or Venus are Retrograde, Sun can never make an applying aspect to them, rather they have changed direction and are applying to Sun.
Sun makes no aspects, which makes it Void of Course, and since no Planets are looking at Sun -- being in aversion to all other Planets (not to mention the Asc/Dsc and Lot of Fortune) -- that makes it Feral.
I think this is why I prefer to only really consider these concepts for the Moon.
But that's illogical.
Depending on which definition you use we may have things like the criterion being that the planet enters into no aspects with any planet during its tenure in that sign - however, obviously, the sun will enter into aspects during its tenure in a sign, if by nothing else than the Moon of course. Which is why I think the further back in time we go, the more we see these concepts are only really applied to the Moon. I think it's been a bit of a mistake to consider it that the important point is that a planet is feral if it does not make an application to another planet whilst in that sign.
Again, that's illogical, as well as contradictory.
Planetary Order & Speed
...Moon-Mercury-Venus-Sun-Mars-Jupiter-Saturn...
I beat people up with that to no end. It's really important for those starting out in Astrology, if for no other reason than it helps in correctly delineating aspects.
Bearing that in mind...
What does everything in this Universe do?
It seeks.
Water seeks its own level. Water also seeks equilibrium as do gases, plasmas and colloids. Rocks seek? Sure. Rocks seek to be at rest, or to resist the forces of gravity. Plants seek. Plant roots seek water...and grow in that direction, while stems, branches and leafs seek the Sun, and so they'll grow all cock-eyed, twisted and distorted around obstacles like other trees, rock outcrops and what not in an attempt to find the Sun (and those that don't get Darwin'd). Animals seek things....and so do people, whether its food, shelter, water, clothing, companionship, a purpose in life or whatever.
The Planets do the same.
Planets are constantly seeking to join with, or aspect another Planet -- for good or bad.
Going back to Planetary Order & Speed, Moon
seeks to join with or make aspects to all Planets....
and some people wonder why the Moon represents change or instability.
Referring again to Planetary Order & Speed, on the other side of the spectrum sits Saturn who -- like all other Planets --- seeks to join with or make aspects to all Planets...
except that Saturn cannot...
....
and some people wonder why Saturn signifies stability, a lack of change, things that are old, oneness, aloneness, things that are solitary, things that are fixed....and that's what he does when he's in a good mood....otherwise Saturn destroys, delays, hinders and corrupts everything.
So what does that say about a Planet that
seeks to join with or make aspects to other Planets, but cannot do so in the Sign it is in?
Al Qabisi describes it, translated by Dykes, as "And if a planet were in some sign, and another planet did not look at this sign so long as it were in it, it is said to be wild[feral]"
Al Biruni says "When a planet is in a sign and no other planet has been in aspect with it from the time of its entry to that of its exit, it is said to be feral in its course."
But notice that there's no concept of the feral planet having to apply, the key distinction is that it is isolated and alone, it is abandoned and in solitude. Therefore the distinction is that during its time in a given sign, it meets with no other planets (by their aspect or conjunction).
It's clear that at some point in the distant past, Sun & Moon were "Lights" while Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter & Saturn were "Planets."
At some later point, this distinction between the Lights and the Planets became blurred. I believe this is one reason the doctrines related to Sect became corrupted. You can see that in continuous references to the Sect Light or Light of the Sect. Yes, each Sect has a Light, but the Sect Light is not automatically the Sect Ruler --- that would violate numerous doctrines, which more or less show that the most powerful Planet of that Sect should be Sect Ruler, meaning between Sun, Jupiter & Saturn, anyone of those three could actually be the Sect Ruler depending on their condition and placement.
Anyway, it would appear as if the Lights were treated differently than the 5 Planets (I'm working on tracing that back).
If we take that track, then if Moon can be Feral, so can Sun, since both are Lights.
The Arabs note that it happens more often with the Moon, but in the earlier tradition (granted it wasn't always clear if it means the next 30 degrees, or the sign) we see that concepts like these are only really applied to the Moon anyway. We don't see examples of a feral/wild Sun or Mars for example.
If it is rare, then we wouldn't expect to see many examples.
This is just my $0.02, for me, it's clear that the spirit behind the meaning of a wild planet is one which is utterly abandoned during its time in a sign, and this only really happens to the Moon, certainly in this case the Moon will make an aspect to the Sun (or several) before it leaves the sign, so for me, this is not a wild/feral planet.
It's possible for people to go overboard with that.
For me, I limit Natal Charts to the current Sign.
"What is this Planet doing in this Sign right now, and what will it do while in this Sign?"
A Planet in a given Sign is applying (seeking) the aspect of another Planet, or it isn't, and if it is, then either it perfects or does not.
Another Planet is either in an applying aspect to the Planet [in focus] or not, and if it is in aspect, then either it perfects or does not.
In this Chart, the Sun makes no aspects in Cancer, and none of the other Planets will make aspects to Sun in their present Signs.
Just a tangent, but why is that absurd? It's not uncommon to see the orb of the Sun as 15 degrees in medieval literature.
No one said Medieval people had Big Brains.
Right, but I don't think I said it was an aspect, so I'm not sure if that was just as a by the way, or in reference to something I wrote. I said "joined by body". This is in reference to your stating that they didn't allow out of sign aspects even when the 'aspect' is a 'conjunction'.
I know that you know, but I said that for the benefit of others who might have some bizarre ideas about aspects.
Clearly showing that Sahl allows planets to perfect provided they enter into orb with one another in a given sign, and perfect with one another, even if they do so in the next sign. This isn't quite the same thing of course, but it's interesting and worth bringing up maybe.
Both Zael and Masha-allah say that a conjunction is "by degree" meaning that two Planets are conjunct only when they are in the same Degree.
Zael also says that once the lighter Planet (here Sun) moves off by 1° then the conjunction is no more...they have separated.
Both Zael and Masha-allah agree that for aspects (which do not include conjunctions) the lighter Planet has separated once it reaches half of half its orb.
According to Zael then, Sun's orb is 30° and its half orb is 15° so in an applying aspect -- a sextile, square, trine or opposition -- to Mars, Jupiter or Saturn he says Sun is joined at 15° applying, then the aspect perfects, then Sun separates at half of its half-orb once it is 7.5° past Mars, Jupiter or Saturn.
Yes Schmidt runs project hindsight. I wonder if you could provide a quote or a rationale? I have never heard that only the superiors can make a phasis, and, to me, it makes no sense - clearly astronomically the inferior planets can make a phasis - they just need to be able to heliacally rise or set.
Never mind. In hindsight, Schmidt would never say something as silly as that. I had to dig up the paper I had been working on to refute the claims of some idiots who create non-existent problems and then try to attack them (a Straw Man) and I was actually using a quote from Zoller who said it was more important to note what Medieval astrologers did, instead of [the Hellenists] speculating on what the Medieval astrologers might have done.
My thought is that it wouldn't matter if the aspect perfects or completes in the next sign, because of the planets witnessing each other one will be applying ~that is seeking to join in aspect~ to the other no matter how far apart they are. This eliminates the notion of loss of hope and gives us more interpretive meaning. Whether or not the aspect will perfect gives us more interpretive meaning still.
Uh, I'll have to think about that.
Yes, the Planets all seek to join or aspect another for good or bad, but having done so, and completed whatever was they were doing, one moves off by separating.
There's nothing wrong with that...except for people who refuse to recognize that conjunctions are not aspects (because they butcher the interpretation).
When Planets are in aspect, they are in different Signs, and thus different Houses, and so they have differing agendas (good or bad), and that's where pushing management, power and nature, plus Reception (and location --- left vs right) tells you who comes out on top (as far as gaining the upper had with their agenda).
With a conjunction, the Planets are in the same Sign, and so in the same House, and so they have the same purpose/agenda (good or bad).
When Planets separate in aspect, that's it....the story's over.
When Planets separate from a conjunction --- it ain't over 'til its over.
Why? Because the conjunct Planets are in the same Sign, and so when they separate, they are
still assembled for the same purpose.....so long as they are within 12° or 15° (depending on the authority) of each other in the same Sign.
Understanding that allows to understand why a Planet in aspect that separates and is VOC has abandoned its cause....and that is different from a Planet that conjuncts and moves off, but has not abandoned its cause since it is still assembled with one or more Planets in the same Sign for the same purpose.
Can a conjunct Planet become Void?
Sure. Moon, Mercury or Venus conjunct one of the Superiors early in the Sign can separate, still be assembled for the same purpose, until it reaches the limit of assembly, and then if no further conjunctions or aspects are made, the Planet is VOC.
And that tells a different story.
Two Planets conjunct, one moves off, yet remains assembled until it exits the Sign, versus two Planets conjunct, one moves off remaining assembled, and then becomes VOC
before exiting the Sign.
In the latter, the Planet "abandoned all hope" while in the former, the Planet continued serving its purpose until it changed Signs.
That's why we say in Electional, Horary and Mundane that the matter comes to nothing when the Moon is VOC, because it signifies the Querent gave up (or will give up), or in Mundane Charts where the issue is ultimately abandoned.
So a planet can be void in a sign even if another planet occupies the same sign in an earlier degree. And that will have a certain interpretation attached to it, because even though the planet is currently void, it may still be assembled with the planet it is disregarding (conjunction by sign), or still able to witness (aspect by sign.) Meaning that empty of course does not automatically confer wildness or annulment.
Uh, okay, I guess I should start reading the entire thread/post first.
So what we have here are actually two different ideas. One is emptiness, and the other is wildness.
A wild planet then isn't necessarily empty of course (and in physical fact using the strict Greek definition of empty completely impossible for any planet other than the Moon.)
The key here isn't an argument about who said what when, but identifying and understanding how to interpret a planet's significations in a chart.
I have an issue with the definitions, too.
Sure, Planets can seek to join or aspect others, but why can't a Planet seek solitude?
As Bob mentioned, there is in this chart no planet that impedes the Sun, likewise no planet that helps it. It doesn't take away from it's ability to act as much as it can for being in the 12th house at any rate) and it will still cast its rays into the houses it can regard. That too is a feature of planetary physics.
Again, we have to ask what is actually negative here?
Alnilam with Mercury: hasty, quick temper, quarrels with associates, domestic disharmony through actions, troubles through writings and opposite sex. (Robson).
Alnilam and Mercury culminate at 84°03' and 84°22' respectively.
But that's Mercury not Sun.
Contrary to popular belief, the Lights do not need to be Angular to be famous.
One can be a president, like Truman, who had Moon/Sun opposition on the 2/8 Axis....meaning Sun and Moon were in aversion to the Ascendant; or Reagan who had a 3rd House Sun and 6th House Moon --- more proof the Sect Light does not need to aspect the Ascendant; and "W" had a 12th House Cancer Sun, Leo Ascendant and 3rd House Moon.
Really, the only thing bad here is the Sun's Dispositor Moon, who is in Aquarius -- Sun's Detriment. Normally, the Ascendant Ruler in the 12th indicates self-destruction, but that's typically the case when the Ruler is afflicted or impeded, or otherwise in bad condition (like being in Detriment/Fall). Aside from that, 12th House Sun protect against powerful enemies, provided the Sun is competent (and if not, then aided by Venus/Jupiter). Sun is plenty competent here, and trouble will probably come from Aquarius Moon in the 7th -- [business partners, associates, legal actions, competitors and open enemies] and that will be associated with groups (Saturn in Gemini 11th).
.