Hi all,

I am wondering if Mars is able to "combust" other planets, because he is a fire planet? Do any of you know of any sources on this? I remember reading that he can, but I can't remember offhand where I heard this idea. If this is true, would it be in any conjunction within orb of Mars, or only under certain scenarios, such as when Mars is above the earth in a day chart (out of sect) and is itself in a fire sign (more excessively fiery)?

I'm sure it wouldn't be quite as powerful as the Sun's ability to combust, but I am just curious how this might work. It seems like he would have some ability to "burn," but maybe this isn't the same as "combustion."

I could have just imagined this concept entirely, so please forgive me if this is completely incorrect.

Thanks!

Mars afflicts, but affliction is very different from combustion... for instance you can still see the other planet when they are conjunct mars!

Thanks, Yuzuru - I know about it being the lesser malefic and afflicting, but I could have sworn that there was a quote about it specifically "burning" other planets somehow, or even a word like "combust" being used. That's a good point about it not being able to completely block the planet from view. Well, if I ever find the quote I'm talking about, I will post it here.

Hmmm, some people said that mars couldn?t be combusted because he was hot and dry, maybe it was this?

Hi Tanit,

you're not referring to besiegement, are you?

I haven't heard of the idea that Mars could combust another planet. However, its dry and hot planetary nature is related to both its colour and its assumed close proximity to the Sun in the geocentric/Ptolemaic model.

The nature of Mars is chiefly to dry and to burn, in conformity with his fiery colour and by reason of his nearness to the sun, for the sun's sphere lies just below him. Tetrabiblos, Claudius Ptolemy 1.4

. . . since I've virtually given up on combustion in natal astrology, I don't care if there is a source for the idea or not.

Combustion rests on a weak idea anyway: the planet cannot be seen because of the proximity of the Sun. OK neither can any planet be seen at any time during the day (Well Moon and Venus sometimes). So which is it that makes a planet combust? Proximity, or lack of visibility? If the Moon so powerfully rules the night due to the Sun's reflection, can a planet be combust the Moon, if we can't see it? What about an occultation? And why limit combustion to longitude. If the planet is reasonably far away due to latitude, is it no longer combust? I think the reasoning favoring the phenomenon of combustion falls apart pretty quickly, but I have to agree with Deb that combustion can and does play a strong role in horary. I'll use it there. [my bewildered emphasis]

What an odd conclusion after so effectively shredding the idea of combustion to pieces.

Using the planets as universal significators ? yes, I can agree about natal charts. A combust natal Mercury hasn't at all convinced me it indicates a weakened, powerless or defective mind without other factors such as being retrograde and in detriment or fall. But as an accidental significator ? if that Mercury rules the 7th house, for example ? combustion considered as a sole negative factor does often seem to offer a useful description of the spouse(s). That would seem to be in line with horary.

I have to agree with Deb that combustion can and does play a strong role in horary. I'll use it there.

Yes, even Mercury combust in horary is quite powerless. I have a recent horary that played out that way (during the current retro and combust Mercury in Virgo).

Thank you very much, Mark, for Ptolemy's quote and the "burn" reference.

Tom - I did realize Mars was excessively hot, but not regarded as hotter than the Sun. That truly is quite odd, although we are not dealing with concrete evidence here, but symbolism. That does clear up some confusion.

I may have heard this "combustion" by Mars used incorrectly somewhere, or just imagined it.

Hello,

I know that the issue of combustion has been discussed many times but somehow it is always one of those things that we traditional astrologers come back to (when we don't have new toys to play with!).

To Tom,
When you said that you don't use combustion in nativity any longer, do you mean that you don't use combustion at all or certain precepts of combustion like it doesn't burn and destroy only makes a planet weak/inconspicuous?

I myself do not use the concept of Sun "weakening" another planet in his proximity unless (like Kirk said) the planet is also detriment and/or retrograde. However, I still find the concept of proximity to the sun as being hidden by the light of the sun (under the beams) or being "inconspicuous" quite useful in both horary and natal. Dorotheus did say to perform a successful theft (or any project that requires stealth), the key planet should be located near the sun or under the beams so that the deed is not discovered. I would add that the key planet should also be in its own domicile or exaltation to ensure success and it should not be visible seven days before and after the time elected (after is more important in election) just to make sure that it stays inconspicuous. I think it was Dorotheus who also mentioned that a planet signifying relationship under the beams can point to eloping.

On matters concerning visibility:
I think that the ancients did not really mean that when a planet is not visible at the time of birth translates to inconspicuous or weak or whatever. If this is the case, then all day born natives will only have the sun visible above the horizon - any other planet would be invisible. They meant that when a planet is "invisible" during the whole one cycle of daily and nightly motion (24 hours), then that planet is considered "inconspicuous" and most of the time, this is due to the planet's proximity to the sun (or under the beams). Even if the planet is not visible (or capable of being seen) in the whole 24 hour cycle, if the planet can be seen within seven of the daily and nightly cycles before and after birth i.e. seven days before and after birth, the planet can still be considered conspicuous (the technical term is making a phasis). Observe that the mystic number seven keeps on appearing in occult work. Obviously the seven days after would make more sense in electional astrology. So, if a planet is invisible (not capable of being seen) within seven days before and after, then that planet is considered really inconspicuous with all the weakening and inconspicuous meanings attached to the "under the beams".

I have to mention a few caveats here. First, The above should apply for natal and maybe electional. In horary (whose concern is more immediate), any planet that is in its combustion (or under the beams) at the time of query is still important in delineation. Second, these concepts do not apply to Sun (as he obviously is not going to be "invisible" during one whole day or even seven days before and after). Sun is only invisible for a fraction of time when he is eclipsed. I also mentioned that a planet is really considered inconspicuous when it is not capable of being seen in the whole day and seven days before and after. You may righly ask the diference between one and seven days. Why not simply say seven days because one day is a subset of seven days? The "one day" is reserved to moon because obviously the moon would be visible within seven days of her new moon (the day that she is invisible for one whole day). The "seven days" then are for the 5 planets.

You might also ask the difference between a planet that makes an appearance seven days before and a planet that makes an appearance seven days after. This has something to do with the planet's phase with the sun - and this has been discussed in other threads (especially on threads that discuss phasing of the planets).

I may pick up this discussion later on the differences among a planet that is inconspicuous at the time of birth but is making a phasis, totally inconspicuous (under the beams with seven days) and not inconspicuous (not under the beams).

What an odd conclusion after so effectively shredding the idea of combustion to pieces.

I agree, but I'm going on my experience, not by any full fledged study and I do not believe my experience is universal, but it is the only experience I can write about with any authority. More below

A combust natal Mercury hasn't at all convinced me it indicates a weakened, powerless, or defective mind without other factors such as being retrograde and in detriment or fall.

I think this goes to the heart of the matter. Lilly says something like combustion is the worst thing that can befall a planet. Other authors similarly write about combustion in extreme terms. If we drop those aphorisms from our minds, combustion becomes a debility not the end of the world. I think the key word is "debility." Nothing can render a planet "powerless." If a planet were truly powerless, what would rule its signs? The fact is no author dragging up the combustion bogeyman ever thinks about that. Authors want to keep the reader's attention and maybe extremes are the way to do that.

I touched on some of this in the earlier post, but again the origins of combustion annoy me as well. The idea is that the Sun burns up (renders powerless) nearby planets and we know this because we know the planet is hidden from view. This is part of visual astrology handed down by Babylonians. The problem is not only that planets can't be seen at any time in the day due to the Sun's brightness, but that it seems so easy for contemporary and older astrologers to switch from visual astrology to philosophical astrology all within this concept. Lilly says a planet isn't combust unless it is in the same sign as the Sun. In visual astrology that shouldn't make much difference. But when visual astrology was the only astrology, the signs were primarily markers of location and little else. If something crossed a sign line, so what? But once the signs took on meanings and gave us an understanding of aspects we become or Lilly became philosophical rather than visual and others criticized him for it. I suggest he is a bit more consistent and no, the fact that my Mercury in Aquarius is within 3 degrees of my Pisces Sun has nothing to do with my thinking.

To me the whole idea gets muddled to the point where questioning its value seems sensible. Yet in my long ago horary studies, combustion played a role in more than a few charts. Perhaps because horary is much simpler and the power of the planets doesn't always play a major role as it does in natal, does it seem to work that way. I don't know for sure, but I do know or believe, however the reader prefers to interpret my words, that combustion, by itself, is not the super serious debility the authors claim.

Tom

The Sun is a star and the heart of the solar system. Mars is a planet. There is a huge difference. Anything near the Sun is outshined. Unless it is at the heart of it.