One thing to add.
Serapiones tells us (vol 8.4, p. 226) that synodical planets are synergical ( ??????????)

From wiki:

Synergy (from the Greek syn-ergos, ???????? meaning working together) is the term used to describe a situation where different entities cooperate advantageously for a final outcome. Simply defined, it means that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Hello Margherita,

Wonderous strong does not mean highly auspicious...

Ok. I was paraphrasing the whole quote from Lilly I gave at the beginning of the thread:

Lilly states

''It's an addition of fortune, and he is wonderous strong''.

So its auspicious + strong the way I read Lilly. If you dont like the word auspicious then please replace with fortunate.

Mark

MarkC wrote: So its strong + auspicious the way I read Lilly. If you dont like the word auspicious then please replace with fortunate.

Mark

No, no I like it enough

Where is exactly this quote?
I found this at page 113 of CA

"[CAZIMI, OR IN THE HEART OF THE SUN.] A Planet is in the heart of the Sun, or in Cazimi, when he is not removed from him 17 min. or is within 17 min. forward or backward, as Sun in 15.30 Taurus, Mercury 15.25. of Taurus: here Mercury is in Cazimi, and all Authors doe hold a Planet in Cazimi to be fortified thereby; "

and here the positive meaning is not mentioned.

Here I'm not sure what strength means. A planet against hairesis is positive when in cazimi for example?

This is Marsilio Ficino "De Sole":

Whenever any planet first touches the heart of the Sun, at that time (however short it might be), it dominates the other planets. Otherwise, when close to the Sun they vacate their accustomed office - so that Saturn conjunct the Sun is judged to abandon his pristine rigidity and Mars his accustomed ferocity.

Here Ficino seems to talk about combustion.

What do you think? And Sasha?

Margherita

Hello Margherita,

Where is exactly this quote?

Oh, yee of little faith!

As I stated in my last post the entire quote from Lilly on the definition of Cazimi is given at the very beginning of this thread.

Check it out for yourself:

Christian Astrology, Book II, page 300, aphorism 26

I tried giving the full link to google books but it took up too much space.

http://books.google.co.uk/books

Mark

MarkC wrote: Oh, yee of little faith!

Mark

ma no!
I was just asking exactly where because I can't read three books of CA or Lilly's complete works even if for you!!!

Margherita

I was reading Ben Dykes translation of Bonatti today. He appears to have developed his own approach that considered a planet free of combustion when it was 2 degrees either side of the Sun.

MarkC wrote:
Christian Astrology, Book II, page 300, aphorism 26

OK.
But what about this (same book, chapter 40) ?

Or if by chance a Planet Direct be in Conjunction with the Moon, it shews the same; Jupiter and Venus in the 5th, or Moon in the 5th, applying to Jupiter or Venus, or a Planet in Cazimi of the Sun, the Planet being a Fortune, is a strong argument of being with Child; but if instead of Fortunes you find the Infortunes so placed as abovesaid, it?s no signe of Conception;

What do you think?
MArgherita

Or if by chance a Planet Direct be in Conjunction with the Moon, it shews the same; Jupiter and Venus in the 5th, or Moon in the 5th, applying to Jupiter or Venus, or a Planet in Cazimi of the Sun, the Planet being a Fortune, is a strong argument of being with Child; but if instead of Fortunes you find the Infortunes so placed as abovesaid, it?s no signe of Conception;

Good find. I can only conclude the aphorism I gave is a generalization but when we get to specifics as here a malefic does not change its essential nature. I presume what Lilly is saying is that the essential nature of a planet is more important than its accidental dignity of being cazimi. Even a more fortunate Saturn is not promising when it comes to matters like pregnancy. Moreover, the fact a malefic is stronger is not necessarily desirable. In general terms I prefer to see a malefic strong in essential dignity but weak in accidental dignity.

Margherita:

This is Marsilio Ficino "De Sole":

Whenever any planet first touches the heart of the Sun, at that time (however short it might be), it dominates the other planets. Otherwise, when close to the Sun they vacate their accustomed office - so that Saturn conjunct the Sun is judged to abandon his pristine rigidity and Mars his accustomed ferocity.

Here Ficino seems to talk about combustion.

What do you think? And Sasha?

Yes, at a first glance it appears that in the second phrase, Marsilio Ficino is talking about combustion.

so that Saturn conjunct the Sun is judged to abandon his pristine rigidity and Mars his accustomed ferocity.

As a confirmation of Marsilio?s assertions, from a fellow astrologer from Hellenistic astrology:

Manetho, Apotelesmatica, Book 1, line 96-100,

?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????, ???? ??? ?????
??????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???????.
??????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???????.

??????? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???????,
??? ???????? ?????? ??????? ??????.
???????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ???????,
???? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ????????????


It is a good thing for all (the planets) to flee from the Sun, but not Mars;
For Mars is overcome when under the rays of the Sun.
Mars is afraid when seeing the light of the Sun,
And it no longer possesses its former maleficence.


This is confirmed also by Firmicus Mathesis, II, 8, 2:

In summa autem dicendum est, quod omnibus stellis noceat vicinitas Solis. Quidem vero volunt Martem prospere cadere, cum Solis radiis fuerit oppressus; naturalem enim malitiam Solem veneratus amittit.

Hello Sasha,

Fascinating references. Keep it coming please!

It is a good thing for all (the planets) to flee from the Sun, but not Mars; For Mars is overcome when under the rays of the Sun. Mars is afraid when seeing the light of the Sun, And it no longer possesses its former maleficence.

Thats very interesting. Some people in the horary community suggest Mars is not affected by combustion due to its hot + dry nature. This goes considerably beyond that to suggest the malefic nature of the planet is taken away by combustion.

Margherita's Ficino reference is thought provoking too. Like most forum members I cannot read Greek. Can i just confirm what the quote from Manetho was referring to? Does he mention Saturn as well?

"Some people in the horary community suggest Mars is not affected by combustion due to its hot + dry nature"

Hi,
as far as I know this is a creation of modern astrology.

Usually, in traditional astrology, the only thing that you will find is the disagreement if a planet in its own sign is protected or not from combustion.

Acc to Schmidt, the helenistics considered that a planet in its sign is like in his own carriage, he is protected from the sun.

Acc to Abu Mashar, even in his sign, a planet will be damaged by the combustion.

as far as I know this is a creation of modern astrology.

I agree. Although it seems popular with a few John Frawley students I have spoken to. Actually, I seem to recall Tom supporting this view but I may be wrong.

Usually, in traditional astrology, the only thing that you will find is the disagreement if a planet in its own sign is protected or not from combustion.

Are you talking about whether combustion can occur across the sign boundary or not? Or are you discussing a planet in its own domicile in close proximity to the Sun?

I assume you mean the latter. I have always had concerns about the idea of the sign boundary offering protection from combustion. Especially, as I have become more interested in visual astrology. However, there was an extremely long thread on just that topic a few years ago so I will not upon up that issue again here.

Mark