I found Martine's quote in the Holden translation, and although it is slightly different, the differences do not alter the meaning. Morin is saying that, yes my Mercury is weak, but not so weak as it prevented me from writing two important books. In Morin's mind the weakness has nothing to do with combustion. From page 138, Book 16, Section III Holden translation:

The same thing can be proved from a thousand nativities; namely, that combust planets are not deprived of at least their influential virtues, but that they act per se by reason of their own nature, both of the sign and the house that they occupy and the one that they rule, and [also] by reason of the aspects which they make with the other Planets or significators, but not by proxies, as was hitherto supposed, although the influx of the Sun must be principally taken into account on account of the reason stated above.

Recall that Morin's argument is that the ancients and their followers claimed a combust planet lost all of its power, and that belief is wrong.. Cardan went so far as to say that the Sun was the true dispositor of any planets in the signs of the combust planets and any houses they rule. This is what Morin is referring to when he uses the word "proxy" or "proxies." So his argument runs this way: "If Mercury represents or rules the mind, then a person with Mercury combust has no mind because a combust planet has no power. But I have a combust Mercury and I'm a really smart guy so the ancients must be wrong."

The operative word here is powerless. He is saying that not only isn't a planet powerless as the ancients argued, but that it operates the same way as it would if it were not combust. It is influenced by the Sun in the same way that it is influenced by any other planet it is conjunct. But it is not powerless.

Then me makes the following interesting observation in the very next paragraph:

Nevertheless, it must be known that the things signified by a combust Planet -- either habits and intelligence, or actions, etc. -- are not conspicuous entirely, at least to everyone, and for the great part they are unnoticed. And so, those persons for whom Mercury is combust, and the significator of intelligence, do not disclose to all either their own intelligence, or what they have in mind, but something is always reserved, or revealed in the smallest things they keep back for themselves. And the reasoning is the same for the rest [of the Planets].

I hadn't noticed this paragraph previously. He is granting something to the idea of combustion. He says that combust planets (and he would include aspects to the Sun as well as conjunctions) act as they would if they were not combust, but that the native withholds something of the nature of the planet. In other words, something is hidden by the native. He might withhold some of what he knows (Mercury combust) or what he has (Jupiter combust), or what he owes (Saturn Combust), or what he lusts for (Venus combust), etc. The planet will give what the planet can give, but the native will hold some of it back.

It might be fun to look at combust planets this way for a while to test the validity of this belief.

Tom

Tom wrote:I hadn't noticed this paragraph previously. He is granting something to the idea of combustion. He says that combust planets (and he would include aspects to the Sun as well as conjunctions) act as they would if they were not combust, but that the native withholds something of the nature of the planet. In other words, something is hidden by the native. He might withhold some of what he knows (Mercury combust) or what he has (Jupiter combust), or what he owes (Saturn Combust), or what he lusts for (Venus combust), etc. The planet will give what the planet can give, but the native will hold some of it back.

It might be fun to look at combust planets this way for a while to test the validity of this belief.

Tom

This is too similar to the concept that when combustion is "on", things go well undercover. If you want to do something in secrecy, a New Moon can help, it is a horary and elective doctrine well known.

This must have something to do with it. So, even though Morin dismissed the Power of combustion, he did not dismiss it entirely. This reasoning of his is more critical than it looks, for he has noticed that a combust planet can NOT be seen, or rather, will remain hidden.

In my opinion, after this quotation of Morin, the problem is less about if combustion happens or not, but about the notion of power itself, held by the authors before him. When a planet is combust, it does not cease to exist, the ancients knew this much. But they said it had no power and that's the source of confusion. What power means in this context is the key question. If it means not that the quality of the planet changes, but rather that it has a greater difficulty to express itself (as if locked or hidden) it can be pretty much that Morin and the ones that came before him where not in disagreement, but instead, lacked in understanding each other (after all to not be seen is, in some way, the same as "not happening". If noone knows, you're only halfway where you should've been, ie, noone rejoices in his own glory or misery alone, except in cases of insanity).

What is striking about combustion in my opinion, is that once you accept that it also works through occulting the planet's ability, it may (and I say may, cause this is speculation of mine) not lose it's quality given by house position (angular, sucedent, cadent). I mean, the planets influences can not be recognized, but it is still there, and the house position still gives it strength (and if it's in domicile, the quality is also good). That would give the edge for those lurking with evil intentions, and would explain well those good deeds that are never brought to light (in good old samarithan's way). Or would point, among other reasons, why highly apt, inteligent or skilled people are never brought to the front, and die obscured by their own ego supression (what would explain partialy why Morin, having 3 combust planets without means to get out, would have to resort to the only two not impedited, his Mercury in 11th and his Mars in 3rd. And I do not believe in the combustion of Mercury in Aquarius, cause if it was, his book would never see the light of day. Still, his Mars in Cancer probably did fail him).

So, even though Morin dismissed the Power of combustion, he did not dismiss it entirely. This reasoning of his is more critical than it looks, for he has noticed that a combust planet can NOT be seen, or rather, will remain hidden.

In my opinion, after this quotation of Morin, the problem is less about if combustion happens or not, but about the notion of power itself, held by the authors before him.

In one sense, he is setting up a straw man, but I don't think he is doing this deliberately. At times he appears a little sloppy, but writing a book over a 30-year period will do that. The straw man is the assertion that planets in combustion are powerless. He easily, in his mind, knocks down the straw man paving the way for his own reasoning, and then throws in this tiny concession in natal astrology.

But as PFN notes, this concession might reveal a more critical thinking than we first notice. The ancients knew that a combust planet didn't cease to exist because sooner or later it came back into view. The word "combust" suggests itself because of the fiery nature of the Sun, but the Sun does not destroy the planet and one cannot destroy something temporarily. Once it is destroyed it is gone and no longer exists.

So what happens? The light and power of the Sun hides the planet and therefore hides the planet's power. Hidden doesn't mean powerless. We are all familiar with the phrase "power behind the throne." The person holding such power is hidden by the power and/or perhaps the glory of the throne. That person still functions.

In astrology that planet still functions, according to Morin, and to a point, Lilly agrees.

" ... the significator of the Querent combust, shows him or her in great fear, and overpowered by some great person." p. 113 CA

In horary, this makes perfect sense. The symbolism is precise and appropriate. Morin's example in natal astrology is also appropriate. The native holds back something or hides something from others. In Lilly's example the querent does not cease to exist, he is afraid, weakened.

And do we need to bring back the idea of combustion by aspect? This is mind boggling since a planet in aspect to the Sun, no matter how tight, is not invisible to the observer. The lack of visibility is supposed to be the very basis upon which the concept of combustion rests.

Morin is probably right that the astrologers who came before him overstated the case. Lilly's idea of being overpowered and Morin's idea of the native holding back or hiding something is less extreme and more satisfying. Although Lilly specifically mentioned horary, his idea is easily incorporated into natal astrology. Mercury combust could indicate the native's ego overpowering his intellect. Although I've never tried it, Cardan's idea that the Sun now disposits the houses and planets that would have been ruled by a combust planet is too much for me. It reminds of the idea that planets in mutual reception swap places. It's born out of the necessity created by lack of understanding.

I took a quick spin through some charts looking for combust planets and of course only found two. If I were looking for something else, combust planets would rain from heaven. The first one is Lizzie Borden famed accused axe murderess in the late 19th century subsequently acquitted, but probably guilty. Lizzie had Venus retrograde and combust and she never married. The Sun is in Cancer and intercepted in the 10th house of status. Venus rules the 9th and 2nd and is exalted in the 7th. As for the 9th, I get the impression that Lizzie was a whole lot smarter than she let on. She did teach Sunday school, and she didn't lack for brains. Her wealth was hidden, but not so much by her as by her father (the Sun?). Andrew Borden didn't believe in new fangled luxuries like indoor plumbing. This kept the suitors from "the Hill," the exclusive part of town, away from Lizzie and her sister Ema despite their being more than wealthy enough to live in the upper middle class lifestyle. Father controlled the wealth.

The second one, by coincidence or perhaps not, was the defendant in a murder trial and also acquitted although certainly guilty: O.J Simpson. Sun is in Cancer and so is Mercury Rx. Mercury rules the 2nd house of wealth and Simpson's wealth was burned up even though he tried to hide it from his creditors, notably Ron Goldman's father. His Mercury is also on the 12th cusp and he is currently hidden away in prison. Talk about ego overpowering intellect - this guy is the poster child for such an affliction. Lizzie might fit this bill as well.

Tom

PFN wrote:

In my opinion, after this quotation of Morin, the problem is less about if combustion happens or not, but about the notion of power itself, held by the authors before him. When a planet is combust, it does not cease to exist, the ancients knew this much. But they said it had no power and that's the source of confusion. What power means in this context is the key question.

There could be clues in the power of ancient kings and rulers. The absolute power of ancient rulers (represented by the Sun) is well-known. They literally got away with murder. Their word and whims dictated. But they needed assistants, those who took charge in various areas. Those men were very powerful, but also very weak ? they were under the thumb of the ruler and could be eradicated at any time by a displeased ruler simply because of false gossip and the schemes of others. But as long as they were in the ruler's favor they could carry on their tasks ? and, through the power given them, make life a living hell for others beneath them. Whether they had power depended completely on the ruler.

Is this the ancient astrological model?

In astrology that planet still functions, according to Morin, and to a point, Lilly agrees.

Quote:
" ... the significator of the Querent combust, shows him or her in great fear, and overpowered by some great person." p. 113 CA

But it always depends upon context. There are other places where Lilly refers to combustion as the surest indicator of death (I'll come back and add a reference later). From what I can see the other earlier authors took a similar approach - using combustion as descriptive of anything from the power to keep things hidden, to the loss of power as the planet enters and emerges from a process of renewal. Also remember that combustion is part of a cycle and not a complete event in itself.

Sorry this is dashed!
Deb

Deb wrote: But it always depends upon context. There are other places where Lilly refers to combustion as the surest indicator of death (I'll come back and add a reference later).

Waiting I found not yet death, but this, Lilly, CA, p. 300 (Aphorismes and Considerations for better judging any Horary Question. 23):

"Beware in all Judgments, when the Significator of the question is either Combust, or on Opposition to the Sun, he will then signifie nothing of the matter, no good, nor is he able to bring any thing to perfection."

Johannes

And still another, Lilly, CA, p. 301, 35:

"In all Questions, know there's not so great an affliction to the Moon, as when she is in conjunction with the Sun; the ill aspects of the Infortunes doth much afflict her, but none so powerfull as her Combustion."

Lilly, CA, p. 256:
"The Lord of the ascendant and of the Figure Combust, doe undoubtedly declare death, unlesse there be some reception between the Sun and them, such a chance happening, and the Moon proving fortunate, after all hopes of escape, a little hopes remaines."

Hi Deb,

this is my last one - Lilly, CA, p. 257:

". . . : it's a powerfull argument that the sick party will dye, when at time of his first Question to his Physitian, you find the Lord of the ascendant Combust in the ascendant."

This quotation and the third above approve your statement exactly, I think.

Johannes

But it always depends upon context. There are other places where Lilly refers to combustion as the surest indicator of death (I'll come back and add a reference later). From what I can see the other earlier authors took a similar approach - using combustion as descriptive of anything from the power to keep things hidden, to the loss of power as the planet enters and emerges from a process of renewal.

I think it also depends on the type of astrology we're working with at the moment. Lilly's references to death as quoted by Johannes are all related to horary. Morin is, at this point, only discussing natal astrology.

If we're asking a question about life or death, it makes sense if the significator is overwhelmed by the fiery power of the Sun, that the answer is death. Or if the significator of quesited is burnt up by the Sun, it makes sense that the thing asked about will not occur.

It is not so simple dealing with nativities. We cannot say the native has no mind if Mercury is combust, and never will have one, or that if the Lord of the ASC is combust that the native is dead. If the meaning changes from chart to chart, is there a way that the astrologer can determine in which charts the planet is rendered powerless and in which the native keeps things hidden? Or do the various authorities simply stick to one delineation in all or nearly all cases?

Tom

It is not so simple dealing with nativities. We cannot say the native has no mind if Mercury is combust, and never will have one, or that if the Lord of the ASC is combust that the native is dead.

Maybe it depends on whether Mercury is being used as a universal or accidental significator. With Mercury as universal significator combustion possibly isn't able to weaken, conceal or eliminate the native's mind. But if Mercury happens to be the accidental 7th house ruler, combustion may well have the power to weaken, conceal or eliminate the spouse or business partner. Similarly with other houses, of course.

Thanks for adding the refs Johannes!

I can understand why nativities can seem to make the matter more complex but I think that Kirk has a point. I haven?t found any essential difference in approach that sets, say, Sahl?s use of combustion in mundane or natal astrology apart from what he applied in horary. But he approaches natal interpretation with the same symbolic analysis of external influences that we take in horary. So for example, a planet can signify a physical journey, and the element of combustion is one of the factors that helps to describe that journey. But it is important to recognise the status within the process as a cycle, because there is a big difference in a planet that is moving towards the Sun, and a planet that is newly combust but not yet visible. It is also important to look at the first contact of a combust planet as it separates from the Sun because that sets an important theme too. Also, the approach differs between inferiors and superiors (but I need an article to explain in full).

David McCann did a study of combust Mercury in the charts of writers many years ago, and concluded that the condition said nothing about intellectual faculties. But I did notice that the writers he selected were all ?deep thinkers?, and I am tempted to think that the element of being ?hidden? portrays a sense of internalisation. This also fits in with the pattern of the cycle, because it is like a new Moon rather than a full Moon effect. The lunar cycle is the best way to understand the meaning of combustion as the point at which planetary phases begin and end, because it?s the one planetary cycle that we still all use quite naturally. People born on a New Moon are not emotionless souls, but they might have a certain kind of emotional naivety or quite the opposite! They can also be quite emotionally 'dark' in that they don't easily express their emotions easily or communicate superficially. I am sure we are talking about very subtle shifts when we are using the planets as significators of personality traits.