Thank you Sue and Andrew,

It's starting to make more sense to me and remains on the list of "things to look into more deeply in the unlikely event I have enough spare time. " But it does make far more sense now than an arbitrary 15-15 division. The universe was never so tidy

Flippancy aside, I will keep my eyes open and see what I can find on this subject. And redefine some of the charts I work with. I'd be very interested to hear if anyone can comment in a practical tone. Or if they're secretly hoarding some good references. There seems to be little of value to read on this subject unless I've been looking on totally the wrong places.

Kim

OK! :-) Then my opinion regarding the cursed degree at 19 Scoripio would be that this point lies in inconjunct to the exaltation degree of the Sun.

Sue wrote: As far as I can see, Bonatti always considered it to be 15? Libra to 15? Scorpio. Al Biruni only ever mentioned the last part of Libra and the first part of Scorpio that Kim referred to above. I suppose this could be considered to mean 15? Libra to 15? Scorpio but I would have been more inclined to see it as maybe the last 5? or so.

And Ptolemy had mentioned exception for 23-24Libra at Spica.

The ?Introduction to Astrology? by Al-Qabisi - or Alcabitius ? (translated Burnett, Yamamoto and Yamo; Warburg Inst, 2004), mentions the affliction of being in the ?burnt path? in chap III, 150 (p.105). A footnote adds a detail from an alternative manuscript :

?This is from the dejection of the Sun in Libra to the degree of the dejection of the Moon in Scorpio?.

This is what Andrew suggested. It makes a lot more sense than 15-15 degrees, and explains the slight discrepancies in the references above. (The Moon is depressed in the 3rd degree, so the affliction runs until the beginning of the 4th degree, but some authors will obviously put 3 degrees whilst others put 4, etc?.)

If anyone knows of older references, please add them to this thread.

Bonatti?s 5th consideration mentions the Moon in the via combusta only.

Does he specifically state "this can ONLY happen with the Moon"? Or does he just mention an incident with the Moon?

I've moved from the other forum. No he does not, and as I stated, the only work of Bonatti's that I own is the Considerations. Since there are so many of them I can't even be sure that he didn't mention anything elsewhere. And since I don't own any other of his works, I don't know what else he may have said. I was rushing through texts looking for examples. I'm satisfied that many prominent authorities accepted as a debility planets besides the Moon in the via combusta. I am not ready to accept Lilly and Gadbury as friends. They may have been at one point, but it didn't last.

Deb wrote:

This is what Andrew suggested. It makes a lot more sense than 15-15 degrees, and explains the slight discrepancies in the references above. (The Moon is depressed in the 3rd degree, so the affliction runs until the beginning of the 4th degree, but some authors will obviously put 3 degrees whilst others put 4, etc?.)

If anyone knows of older references, please add them to this thread.

Carmen Astrologicum by Dorotheus of Sidon, 1st century AD under the heading Corruption of the Moon:

If the Moon in its motion is in the path which the learned call "the burned path" (The burned path is in the middle of the equator which is Libra and Scorpio) ..." page 265

I'm not real clear on what he means by the "middle of the equator." 0 Libra would be where the equator intersects with the ecliptic in the west. Scorpio begins a full 30 degrees after 0 Libra. I don't think he is referring to the entirety of both signs.

What is interesting is that this is in a section on "Interogations" or horary, and by extension elections. For he says at the beginning of this section:

Then he mentioned the condition of the Moon and its corruption in which a commencement is not to be made in an action or anything until the condition of the Moon and its Lord are ameliorated." p 264

I didn't see anything pertaining to the planets, but I didn't read the entire work before writing.

Abu Mashar (787 - 886 AD) Abreviation of the Introduction to Astrology Charles Barnett Trans., ARHAT page 35 under Corruptions of the Moon

" ... the eighth (of 11 corruptions - tc) if it is in the burnt path, these are Libra and Scorpio. ..."

Well maybe Dorotheus did mean the whole signs of Libra and Scorpio. I found nothing where the other planets are afflicted in the via combusta regardless of where it is.

Finally for the record I'll but Ibn Ezra's comment in here even though he post-dated Alchabitius:

"The weakness of a planet is when ... [it is] in the Fiery Road which is from 19 Libra to 3 Scorpio."

The translator (Meira Epstein) and editor Rob Hand wrote the following footnote::

"Note the Fiery Road is defined from the fall degree of the Sun to the Fall degree of the Moon [Additional by Rob Hand] The point is we have no way of knowing whether this is meaningful or coincidence.

Lots of ideas on where this "fiery road" is, and we haven't touched on why, yet.

Tom

I am not ready to accept Lilly and Gadbury as friends. They may have been at one point, but it didn't last.

This (although slightly offtopic now) is from John Gadbury and his thanks to Lilly for offering his sources to him, obviously they were good friends at the time of this. I do not know enough about their personal history to make any statements beyond that but here is the reference I was referring too. Again I apologize if this is slightly offtopic.

When I first of all adventured upon this task, I made my intention known unto my truly honored friend, Mr. William Lilly, who, upon the hearing thereof, very nobly, and like a true and faithful propagator of Art and learning, gave me many encouragements to perfect the thing I intended; and that I might not want the sight or assistance of the best authors, both Arabian and Latin, he most civilly and freely offered me the use of his study towards the accomplishment hereof : without which signal favor and respect, it had been impossible for me to have framed it so perfect as thou now seest it. And I hereby return my hearty thanks, as the only Testimony of a grateful heart, where a richer requital is wanting. - Doct of Nativ. Introdution to the Reader

As for via Combusta, has it been considered the inconsistancies of this point have to do with the orbs of the Planets involved in this? What I mean is that the Sun has an orb of 17 degrees and a fall in Libra, where as the Moon has an orb of 12'30 and its fall in Scorpio. Now its stated that via Combusta starts in 15 degrees Libra(15Lib-0Scorp) unto 15 degrees Scorpio(0Scorp-15Scorp). The middle point of this would be 0 degrees Scorpio (15 degrees on either side). If we follow the orb rules of the planets (Sun+Moon orb/2 or Sun/2+Moon/2) we come to almost exactly 15 degrees orb on either side of our middle point. I find that quite a significant coincidence. Im sure that this will be torn apart but it is Mercury retrograde so Im sure to have made a mistake somewhere. Does this work? Am I missing something?

Aaron Brody - Astro.Teacher
http://antiquus.prophp.org
Antiquus Astrologia

Actually the same discussion about the exact meaning of this so called ?middle of the equator? is present also in the case of Vettius Valens. In the first book, when explaining the qualities of the Libra and Scorpio, he is using the following word: ?ekleiptikon?. Now comes the rough part.
In one opinion the translation would be ?a place for eclipses? (this translation I found in Schmidt. it?s present also in an earlier translator, Bara ?lieu des eclipses?, which is the exact French translation of ?place for eclipses?.
According to a second opinion (this the opinion of Giuseppe Bezza, a great specialist in classical languages), the word ?ekleiptikon? used by Vettius Valens for Libra and Scorpio (only for them), means ?defective? (in the sense that something is missing, is incomplete) because those signs are opposed to Aries and Taurus, which are the exaltation of luminaries (hypsomata). so this would be the origin of the later via combusta.

This (although slightly offtopic now) is from John Gadbury and his thanks to Lilly for offering his sources to him, obviously they were good friends at the time of this.

Just to point out that things change read this quote from Gadbury in Britain's Royal Star (1661).

I know astrology is sufficiently under the Hatches at this day in England, and by the major force of wise and ignorant, not only neglected, but condemned by reason of the Sycophancy, Leidgerdemain, and Grand Juggling of that Arch Parasite Merlinus Anglicus; who for many years hath been falsely reputed the Chief Astrologer among us."

Merlinus Angelicus is, of course, William Lilly. Anyone who read or studied Gadbury's delineation of the nativity of King Charles I can only whistle in admiration at Gadbury's chutzpah calling anyone a sycophant.

As for the orbs, interesting idea. The only problem I have is that different authors give different orbs for the various planets.

Tom

Merlinus Angelicus is, of course, William Lilly. Anyone who read or studied Gadbury's delineation of the nativity of King Charles I can only whistle in admiration at Gadbury's chutzpah calling anyone a sycophant.

Thanks for the quote! I do wonder (out of curiosity) the origin of their feud. I notice that the published date of the manuscript I quoted from is 1658, so that is not very long after.

As for the orbs, interesting idea. The only problem I have is that different authors give different orbs for the various planets.

That could also be a contributing factor in why its not always 15Li-15Sc. Of course I cant prove this past a few examples but I am curious of others opinions, if the via Combusta degrees match those of Sun+Moon/2 orbs of the authors who write about both.

Aaron Brody - Astro.Teacher
http://antiquus.prophp.org
Antiquus Astrologia

Thanks for the quote! I do wonder (out of curiosity) the origin of their feud. I notice that the published date of the manuscript I quoted from is 1658, so that is not very long after.

Deb is better versed in this than I am as are others on this list and not too surprisingly they're all British. I'm a bit surprised at the dates. Lilly was a Parliamentarian during the English Civil War and Gadbury was a Royalist. Each produced propaganda for his side. I would have expected a fallout prior to 1658, but I am not expert in the period.

I've often thought of writing something on astrological rivalries. They're as old as the art, and they continue into the present time. A couple of good ones were Cardan vs Guarico, Lilly v Gadbury, Morin v everyone, etc. Worsdale had it in for Sibly, and on into modern times there were feuds between Alan Leo and AJ Pearce, and Sepharial raised a few eyebrows. In the US astrology barely got going in the mid 19th century when Luke Broughton and his former pupil William Chaney got into it, but Chaney was less well behaved in that one than Broughton. When women feud they do it with less fanfare. Evangeline Adams pretended her former teacher and later competitor, Catherine Thompson simply didn't exist. There is a lot of, "If you're right then I'm wrong and that can't be so you must be a fraud" in these rivalries, not to mention the financial motives.

I know I know - off topic

Tom

Yes, it is getting a bit off-topic ? so if you are going to continue your ?gossip? you should start a new thread ( however, for the juicy bits go to David Plant?s article on Gadbury ? this link will take you straight to the relevant part about their spat: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/gadbury.html#gl )


Re: Via Combusta - Tom mentioned some references that only appeared to mention the signs, and I should point out that in the Alcabitius reference I gave at the top of this page, the main text says of the ?burnt path?: ?this is from Libra to Scorpio?. The extra detail was added as a footnote, taken from an alternative manuscript.

Sasha, I was fortunate to meet Giuseppe Bezza recently, and I would take his opinions very seriously. Al Biruni seems to use a similar logic:

"The combust way is the last part of Libra and the first of Scorpio. These two signs are not congenial to the Sun and the Moon on account of the obscurity and ill-luck connected with them and because each of them is the fall of one of the luminaries. They also contain the two malefics, the one by exaltation (Libra, Saturn) the other by house (Scorpio, Mars)."

But still, I find the description of the area as ?burnt? intriguing, especially given the ancient descriptions of the ecliptic as the golden or burning path. This brings in the question of why the Sun is exalted at 19 Aries? And with the knowledge that the VP was placed in the middle of Aries in ancient sources, I can?t help wondering if the tradition of the Via Combusta is itself extremely ancient. In any event, the main emphasis seems to have fallen on these two signs being where the luminaries are weak and the malefics strong, and different astrologers could argue different opinions on whether that should be closely tied to the exaltation degrees or split between the signs. I am personally shifting in my opinion ? veering more towards the area between the two ?fall? degrees; but up to now I?ve never felt a great connection to the symbolism of the Via Combusta, so I have never really placed too much emphasis upon it.

first the real question, can someone point me to an article or reference of why planets are exalted at particular degrees? I've always wondered? it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, the sign yes, the degree? well why?

now the smart alec reply; the sun of course is exalted at 19 Aries because that is my Descendent cusp....

but would like some real references on that. I do wonder if the planets in question aligned with some fixed star when this practise came into being? especially since all the degrees of exaltation seem to be different?

and when was it decided that these particular degrees were exalted?

thanks, granny