Okay.
Sahl defines “void of course” as:
«…when the Moon is not connecting to any of the planets and none are joining to it. This is
called the void of movement of the Moon and its body; there is futility in it and it is the planet of
exile. It is the planet that is not connecting to any of the other planets.»6
The word that is very important here is connecting. To understand what Sahl means by
that then we have to read his earlier definition of what “connecting” is:
«The connection7 is if the light and quick star is pursuing the heavy star, the light one will be
lesser in degree than the heavy one, and so the [light] planet continues to go towards the
[heavy] planet, and closes in on it, and it will become [joined] with it in the degree, minute to
minute8; then it is called connected.9»
This “connection” is the very same as Abu Ma’shar describes:
«Application in longitude occurs only if a planet which is light in movement goes towards a
planet which is slower than it, when it is in conjunction with or aspecting it. As long as the
degrees of the light planet are less than the degrees of the heavy planet which is in conjunction
with or aspecting it, then it is ‘going into application with it’.»10
Al-‘ittişāl is the application of one planet to another under specific conditions; “when it
is in conjunction with or aspecting”. Sahl explains this even more clearly in the section
which follows his definition of Al-‘ittişāl. First he tells us;
5
«…the planet is not considered departed from the [other] planet until the lighter one departs the
heavier one by half of its body. It is its light (i.e. half of its body), because each of the planets
has a body, a light, and individual parts, so half of the parts are from the front of the planet and
half are from behind it.»
«Know that the body of the Sun is 30°, half in front of it and half behind it. If any of the planets
were between the Sun from 1° to 15°, [the Sun] radiates its light [over the planet], and it is
connected with it.»
The individual parts of the “body” are the lights which he has told us is half of its body
before and half of its body behind. Therefore when Sahl further states that “the light of
the Moon is 12°” he is only referring to half of the Moon’s body! The Moon’s light 12°
before it and its light 12° behind it just as with the Sun.
Again we will see this teaching does not change in Abu Ma’shar:
«Each one of them in its body has power over a certain number of degrees before and after it.
The power of the body of the Sun is 15° in front of it, and the same number behind it.11 The
power of the body of Saturn and Jupiter, both of them, is nine degrees in front and behind them
both. The power of the body of Mars is eight degrees in front and behind it. The power of the
body of Venus and Mercury, both of them, is seven degrees in front and behind them both.»12
What Sahl describes is four relative and distinct conditions. (1) When application begins
(al-‘ittişāl) and the applied to planets body or aspect is in the light of the applying
planet and in this state they are connecting. (2) When the joining is culminated and the
two planets are in the same degree and minute (al-mutta’il). (3) When separation begins
and the applying planet has moved into the following degree of where they were joined
(al-‘inşarâf). And finally (4) when planets finish their separation and the former applied
to planet's body or aspect is no longer in the light of that previously applying planet and
they are no longer connected.
You may be wondering just why all this information and quoting is relevant to a
discussion on “void of course” and the Moon in our chart. The answer may be clearer
when we read the last lines of this section from Sahl where he is speaking of the bodies
and lights of the planets.
«…if the planet were in the last of the sign, and it is not connected with anything, and if the next
sign was struck by its light, then whichever planet was first in that light is connected with it, even
if the planet which was in the sign will not see it.»
What Sahl is saying then is that it is possible for a planet at the end of a sign to be
joined to (or connected) to a planet in the next sign. Returning to Sahl’s definition of
void of course, the Moon is not void of course in our chart because it is only void of
course “when the Moon is not connecting to any of the planets and none are joining to
it.”
We are also specifically told by Sahl;
«Sometimes a planet seeks a conjunction but does not bring it about in its own sign until a
planet imitates it (the applied to planet) through its (the applying planet) own hastening13. And if
it (the applying planet) were to catch up with it (the applied to planet) in the next sign and it was
not joined to another, the purpose is perfected.»14
Not only is the Moon not void of course, but the matters it signifies will be perfected
because it will not be joined to any other planet but the Sun!
For an example, look at the second chart William Lilly examines in Book II of his
Christian Astrology.15
It is a chart of the Resolution of these questions:
1. If find the party inquired of at home.
2. A thing suddenly happening, whether good or bad is intended?
3. What Moles or Marks the Querent has?
4. If one absent be dead or alive?
In this chart, we find the Moon in the last degrees of Pisces and by many modern
astrologers’ opinion, void of course. What did Lilly say?
«I observed further, that the Moon did apply to a Sextile Dexter of Saturn, Lord of the 4th, which
signifies the house or dwelling place of the Querent…»
7
This chart is particularly interesting because we are faced with the fact that Saturn is in
a sign that is cadent from the sign of the Moon; i.e. they are in aversion and cannot
“see” each other just as we are faced with in the chart of the question of this paper
where the Moon is in a sign that is cadent from the sign of the Sun; i.e. Cancer to Leo. I
picked this chart for a reason. In Lilly’s judgment the Moon is not void of course;
otherwise he would have said so. But instead he says the Moon is applying to Saturn’s
dexter aspect which falls in 3° Aries. Let’s just refresh our memory as to what Sahl
said,
«…if the planet were in the last of the sign, and it is not connected with anything, and if the next
sign was struck by its light, then whichever planet was first in that light is connected with it, even
if the planet which was in the sign will not see it.»
There is no doubt that Saturn’s sextile aspect is the first in the Moon’s light16 in that
next sign of Aries! Because of that fact, Lilly says the resolution of the matter is that the
son was in the house of his mother – and he was right! I should also point out that
Jupiter, lord of the 5th, is also not void of course, being joined to Saturn’s square aspect
to 3° Scorpio which happens to also fall in the light ahead of Jupiter who is in the last
degrees of Libra.
I would like to just point out that, in Lilly’s judgment, the Moon is not the significator
of the querent, but is signifying for the quesited, i.e. the son! This will be of value to
remember when we get to how the ancients appointed the significators of our current
question.
Now I would like to interject an interesting thought at this point. We often speculate at
what point in Astrological history that orbs of influence are introduced. There are not
many years between Mâshâ’allâh and Sahl,17 they were in fact contemporaries, yet there
is a very distinct difference between them which is evidenced by how each of them treat
the subject of Void of Course. These differences could be explained by the introduction
of the teaching of orbs of influence.
As mentioned earlier, Sahl defined Void of Course as,
«…when the Moon is not connecting to any of the planets and none are joining to it. This is
called the void of movement of the Moon and its body; there is futility in it and it is the planet of
exile. It is the planet that is not connecting to any of the other planets.»
And as I further mentioned this connecting was when the applying planets were joined
or connected by their orbs of influence.
Mâshâ’allâh on the other hand, does not “define” void of course per se, but gives us an
example of void of course. In Chapter 7 of his treatise, “On Reception” he gives us this
example regarding a question concerning an inheritance.18
«After this, I looked at the Moon in that same hour, [and] she was void in course…»
8
The Moon in this chart was 27°57’ Leo. What is of interest is that Mars was in 5°29’
Gemini. According to Mâshâ’allâh, they were not “joined”. In fact Venus, which was
lady of the Ascendant, was also void of course and he refers the reader to look at that
significator which first leaves the sign it is in and see what planet it will be joined to. He
chooses the Moon which is the faster of the two and the one in the greatest number of
degrees in its sign. He then tells us it will be joined to Mars and thereafter makes his
judgment. These considerations of Mâshâ’allâh do not consider “orbs of influence” at
all. This is not the case with Sahl where planets could even be in signs of aversion but
still be “joined” because of their orbs!
«…if the planet were in the last of the sign, and it is not connected with anything, and if the next
sign was struck by its light, then whichever planet was first in that light is connected with it, even
if the planet which was in the sign will not see it.»
In Mâshâ’allâh’s works there is a total lack of mention of orbs of influence or the
influence of their bodies etc. Mâshâ’allâh nonetheless uses a similar language when he
says they are joined to another planet. It is quite clear from his example that his
conditions for “joining” another planet were different than Sahl’s. It is doubtful to me
that Mâshâ’allâh worked in terms of “orbs of influence”. In fact we do not find any
reference to “orbs of influence” in any of these first Arabic astrologers such as Omar
and Abu Ali.
It is, in my humble opinion, this teaching of “orbs of influence” that changes the
perception of what is a “joining” and therefore what is or isn’t void of course. If one
accepts and practices “orbs of influence” then it is also necessary to consider its results
in regards to void of course.
