Hi all,

I looked at the following authorities on the issue of combustion: Firmicus Maternus, Paul of Alexandria, Olympiodorus, Abu Ma?shar, Alchabitius, Al-Biruni, Ibn Ezra, Bonatti, Dariot.

What I found was this. Combustion was <i>always</i> framed in terms of (a) planets? varying relationships with the sun (being matutine/vespertine, oriental/occidental, and whether combustion occurred during retrogradation); and (b) in terms of the planets? visibility when near to the sun. Some authorities said that certain planets became visible at different degrees of separation, others gave a uniform radius for combustion?s influence.

These authorities <i>never</i> discussed signs or aspects in the same place as they did combustion, even though they sometimes made a point of saying where they stood on the issue of out-of-sign conjunctions. Aspects and conjunctions were framed in terms of degrees of the zodiac.

In discussions of charts (where I could find them), there were cases where a planet was in a different sign but within the number of degrees to be combust, but the authors never mentioned it one way or another.

Finally, Al-Biruni said something that was very interesting. He said that Venus?s visibility is so great that if she is at a high latitude, she will not be in conjunction with the Sun <b><i>or even combust</b></i> even if she is in the relevant degrees of the ecliptic.

What this says to me is that signs are irrelevant to combustion: it was originally a matter of visibility vis-?-vis the sun ? literally being in the sun?s rays ? and that there is nothing to prevent out-of-sign combustion.

This coming week I will be attending Bob Zoller?s seminar on mundane astrology in Vancouver ? I?ll ask him about what he does in his practice.

Best,
Ben