Hello Sue

Now I'll just sit here and wait to be struck by lightning.

Thought I'd better get back to you then in the few hours before it hits!

That is, combustion is only considered when the Sun and the other planet are within the same sign. I have a problem with this because I could not find any evidence prior to Lilly that combustion was sign related.

Does that mean that you took the inference "if it isn't specifically denied, then it must be OK" or did you have something different for allowing it in the first place?

Due to all the conflicting opinions (and evidence it seems), I think I'm going to go with in-sign combustion if only because it seems to make the most "follow-through" sense in terms of:

Coley was taught by Lilly and became his adopted son, so we can expect that he would have followed his methods closely. Although Lilly states that the planets need to be in the same sign, the chart examples I've seen from his work aren't able to illustrate whether or not he actually applied the rule in practice. The Coley example gives a little more credence to the view that Lilly would have disregarded the affliction of combustion when it was out of sign. (Deb)

... also might it be possible that if the second planet in another sign happens to have essential dignity, this gives it a little extra strength to fight off the combustion? In Deb's example:

However, Coley?s example chart has both Venus and Mercury within 8.30 degrees of the Sun. The positions are: Sun 5.05 Scorpio; Mercury 2.02 Scorpio and Venus 28.45 Libra. This chart is referred to throughout the book and in many places Coley refers to the combust state of Mercury but he never does the same for Venus. So presumably, despite the lack of reference to the need for planets to be in the same sign, Coley didn?t consider Venus as combust because it wasn?t in the same sign as the Sun.

...Venus rules Libra, Mercury has no essential dignity at 2.02 of Scorpio?
Does this make sense to you? Might this be why -

Although Lilly states that the planets need to be in the same sign, the chart examples I've seen from his work aren't able to illustrate whether or not he actually applied the rule in practice. The Coley example gives a little more credence to the view that Lilly would have disregarded the affliction of combustion when it was out of sign.

. . . and do I extend it to "under the beams"? And are beams just a weaker version of combust?

thanks,
Sungem

Hi Sungem,

Having survived the night not getting struck by lightning I should add that I do really think Lilly is the best authority we have when it comes to horary astrology. This is probably the only issue I have come across where I have a real problem. It's not that I disagree vehemently but I would like more information about his reasons for sign boundaries as it relates to combustion. For me, the whole principle around combustion involves issues around visibility/invisibility.

With the issue of 'under the Sun's beams', anywhere between 8 deg 30' and 17 deg of the Sun is considered 'under the Sun's beams.' The way I see it, if it is an applying aspect, the planet involved is losing power to the Sun and will become weaker as it gets closer to the Sun. So, if it is a signficator, the person it represents will only become weaker in the situation involved. If it is a separating aspect, the planet has left combustion and is regaining its strength, soon to be free of the power of the Sun. So the person or situation has recently been in a weakened state but will soon be free of the situation. As with any horary work, whether it is a separating or applying aspect will be a major factor.

Sue

Now I'll just sit here and wait to be struck by lightning.


Laughing Thought I'd better get back to you then in the few hours before it hits! Laughing

Here it comes. Nah. I seem to be going through one of those occasional periods that whatever comes out of my mouth or keyboard is instantaneously misunderstood. Whether this is my fault or the listener's/reader's is not clear. So I resist the temptation to say "whatever Tom believes must be right," since the hyperbole is likely to be misunderstood. However you are free to believe it nonetheless.

Sue wrote:

That is, combustion is only considered when the Sun and the other planet are within the same sign. I have a problem with this because I could not find any evidence prior to Lilly that combustion was sign related.

Deb wrote:

Coley was taught by Lilly and became his adopted son, so we can expect that he would have followed his methods closely. Although Lilly states that the planets need to be in the same sign, the chart examples I've seen from his work aren't able to illustrate whether or not he actually applied the rule in practice. The Coley example gives a little more credence to the view that Lilly would have disregarded the affliction of combustion when it was out of sign.

Deb also wrote:

However, Coley?s example chart has both Venus and Mercury within 8.30 degrees of the Sun. The positions are: Sun 5.05 Scorpio; Mercury 2.02 Scorpio and Venus 28.45 Libra. This chart is referred to throughout the book and in many places Coley refers to the combust state of Mercury but he never does the same for Venus. So presumably, despite the lack of reference to the need for planets to be in the same sign, Coley didn?t consider Venus as combust because it wasn?t in the same sign as the Sun.

Sungem asks whether Venus' great dignity in Libra might be a mitigating factor and I would answer, "yes." I've been told, but admitedly have not seen, that an argument raged or maybe merely existed, as to whether or not a planet in great dignity could be combust. Great dignity would be limited to rulership and exaltation. It is argued that planets in great dignity behave as though they were in mutual reception with the Sun as opposed to their power being burned up. This makes sense to me otherwise we are ignoring planetary strength when it comes to combustion.

A legitimate objection might be, "Well why stop at exaltation? Wouldn't other strength as shown by accidental or essential dignity have to be taken ito consideration?" I would answer that logically we would have to take other essential dignity into consideration, but that accidental dignity is not the same thing and that would not be considered. However the effects of combustion on a planet that has dignity by triplicity only would be tough to measure, and tougher still with a planet having dignity by term and/or face. Therefore I would be tempted to ignore that dignity and consider the affected planet to be combust.

In Coley's example Venus is in domicile rulership in Libra, and he might not have considered her combust for that reason, but the sign change muddies the waters a bit. Would he have considered Venus combust if she were in Libra with the Sun? That would clarify things.


Sungem writes:

. . . and do I extend it to "under the beams"? And are beams just a weaker version of combust?

All authors mention "under the beams, " but I've seen few charts, if any, where this distinction made a profound difference. By that I mean in theory it weakens the affected planet. In practice, I'm not so sure the weakess is a make or break condition like combustion can be. Since I do not consider planets out of sign as combust I would not extend under the beams over sign lines either. I would think if we do that Mercury and Venus would rarely be unafflicted. I don't think this holds up well in practice.

It is also important to keep in mind that distance from the Sun is a factor. A planet on the edges of combustion and leaving it is not affected to the same degree as a planet within two degrees of the Sun and going closer.

In the end, regardless of which way the astrologer considers these accidental debilities, I think consistency is the most important quality. If you don't cross sign boundaries for combustion then don't do it for under the beams, and vice versa. And of course don't use sign boundaries in some charts but not in others.

I think I hear thunder.

Tom

Thanks Sue & Tom

I was going to hop on to do a quick edit only to find some excellent answers!

I agree with you both as to "under the beams" - your answers confirm what I had nutted out (and make perfect sense Tom ).

In practice, I'm not so sure the weakess is a make or break condition like combustion can be. Since I do not consider planets out of sign as combust I would not extend under the beams over sign lines either. I would think if we do that Mercury and Venus would rarely be unafflicted. I don't think this holds up well in practice.

This is one of the problems I've been trying to come to grips with - that Mercury and Venus would rarely be unaffected - and I have a hard time believing that they could be disabled so much of the time.

What I was coming back to say was if we follow through the thought on essential dignity being able to combat combustion then does this allow OOS combustion except in the case of essential dignity?

Tom: It is argued that planets in great dignity behave as though they were in mutual reception with the Sun as opposed to their power being burned up. This makes sense to me otherwise we are ignoring planetary strength when it comes to combustion.

I don't know about equivalent to mutual reception - but I find it hard to believe that Venus can be so disabled in her own sign, given the importance we attach to it as you say.

However my thought this morning runs on to:- does this allow OOS combustion except where essential - and great - dignity is evident? (I think I agree terms and faces would be too hard to track).

However I understand Sue's reference to visibility. I should clarify - I understand the concept and principle, but I'm too weak on the technicalities to know how they blend with this issue of dignity, because I think in order for dignity to to combat combustion it must also work with the visibility/invisibility concept - but I may be off the chart here

I know there are inconsistencies in the above - I'm virtually thinking out loud here and sometimes it's not a pretty sight.

Interesting development. I just nicked this from Mark's last post on the loast glasses thread -

When I looked at the Moon?s past aspects, after it separated from Mercury, which shows the glasses parting from my friend, it next made a square with Venus in the 12th. I think that shows the person who misplaced them. Venus is in her own sign of Taurus, but is in the 12th house and is combust the Sun. So her character and intentions are good, but she doesn?t have much strength in the situation. Venus only rules the 6th house in this chart.

. . . this is the thread -

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=913

. . . this is the chart I put up at Astrodienst -

http://www.astro.com/cgi/chart.cgi?

We may be able to see from what happens on that thread whether Venus has any power in her own sign as per Tom's thought above:-

In Coley's example Venus is in domicile rulership in Libra, and he might not have considered her combust for that reason, but the sign change muddies the waters a bit. Would he have considered Venus combust if she were in Libra with the Sun? That would clarify things.

Hello,

However I understand Sue's reference to visibility. I should clarify - I understand the concept and principle, but I'm too weak on the technicalities to know how they blend with this issue of dignity, because I think in order for dignity to to combat combustion it must also work with the visibility/invisibility concept - but I may be off the chart here

Actually you've articulated the differences in viewpoint on this issue: visibility vs philosophy. Babylonian astrology is based mostly on the things they could see in the sky. It has been called omenology for that reason. The Hellenistic Greeks borrowed a good bit of the "omenology," but what they developed, Horoscopic Astrology, was based on philosophy. Robert Schmidt believes this development took only about 100 years. Horoscopic Astrology is neither completely visual nor completely philosophical, but more philosophical than visual. The combustion issue discussed above highlights this point.

Bernadette Brady has also "gone visual" in her use of the fixed stars. However, she isn't the first post Hellenist to do so. Cardan made reference to positions of fixed stars in the sky, off the ecliptic in mundane astrology:

"When the head of Algol passed through Asia Minor and Greece [i.e. ALgol passed through the zenith, the latitude and longitude of the area on arth projected on the celestial sphere daily until, due to precession it no longer did this], in around 400 years it utterly destroyed those provinences, and made them deserted and subject to Muslim oppression ..." (quoted from Cardano's Cosmos by Anthony Grafton Harvard University Press, 1999 page 62)

This is a reference to Algol's actual position in the sky that is affected by precession. Many, if not most of the fixed stars are not on the ecliptic, yet we treat them as though they are. So the stars have been used both visually and philosophically with good results in both cases. Combustion, however doesn't afford us this little luxury of doing it both ways. A planet is either combust or it isn't. You just have to make up your mind and stick with your decision unless or until you find it wanting. You can find sound thinking on both sides of this issue.

As for Mark's chart, Venus is debilitated in 12 regardless of whether she is combust or not. I hate to be picky, but I'd like to see an example of a planet in rulership conjunct the Sun in an angular or succedent house. If the house has to be cadent, any house but the 12th will do.

Tom

Thanks Tom - now I get it

A planet is either combust or it isn't. You just have to make up your mind and stick with your decision unless or until you find it wanting. You can find sound thinking on both sides of this issue.

. . . gee - you make some things nice and easy and then you go and blow it.

. . . I'd like to see an example of a planet in rulership conjunct the Sun in an angular or succedent house.

Would you like sprinkles with that?

It's 11pm I'm going to bed - I'll be back.

Poor Tom,

You sound quite stressed that we are all grabbing at the opportunity to converse with you

Well if you come and play with me on this thread, I'll promise only to talk to you when you're asleep!

Back to combustion. I don't have any client charts so I'm really scratching here but I've managed to come up with 3 would you believe. I was going to put up the Archer chart Sue supplied but I figured we can't/don't really know the outcomes. I'll swap one out if you want. (You can only put 4 sets of data on an Astrodienst guest)

1) Lunar-1 happens to be my current lunar chart - Venus in Taurus in 5th, but an OOS combustion.

http://www.astro.com/cgi/showgif.cgi?la ... res=75&va=

2) Venus Return is again mine. Mercury combust in Gemini in 5th

http://www.astro.com/cgi/showgif.cgi?la ... res=75&va=

The event chart of an email I sent yesterday is a fluke. Last year I did a 3 mth assigment for a firm I dearly would have liked to stay with permanently. Complications on their side meant I couldn't. I had been thinking about them this week and yesterday decided to send an email to the Practice Manager asking if there "might be a need for my talents in the foreseeable future." I drafted an email and I don't know how long it sat in draft before I finally sent it. This morning I took a look at the event chart using the time/date stamp of the sent email.

3) Event chart of sent email - Venus in Taurus 1' to MC and 33' out of combustion (my natal Mars is 25.11 Taurus and note the POF in 11 - my natal Venus is 24.57 Gemini). Did I accidentally time this well or not?

http://www.astro.com/cgi/showgif.cgi?la ... res=75&va=

4)So out of curiosity I also ran an event chart for the draft and set it at midday. I have no idea really, but it felt about an hour, I was actually doing some work in between! - note Saturn on the Asc (!) - and POF conjunct natal sun and mercury at 12.11 and 13.19 respectively. (Yes I know the event and natal charts aren't supposed to relate, but curious just the same.) It's been very much on my mind and end of financial year approaching means they may need extra people. Besides which the near combustion was then in the 10th.

http://www.astro.com/cgi/showgif.cgi?la ... res=75&va=

If you don't like any of these - and I just know you're going to complain about the late degrees - then I'm afraid I'm all out of chocolate sprinkles and someone else will have to help me out please ...

Hi Tom,

I will have a look at these charts when I have a bit more time after the weekend. The reason I wanted to have a look at Jeffrey Archer's chart is because he has two planets in combustion; one in the same sign as the Sun and one out of sign. He has an Aries Sun with Jupiter in Aries combust the Sun and Saturn in Taurus, within orb of combustion. It would be interesting to look at whether his Jupiter is debilitated by combustion and Saturn isn't (or is). Of course, there are several other factors which could come into play but it is interesting to see the two variations on combustion in the same chart.


Jeffrey Archer
15th April 1940
11:45am BST
Mark, Somerset, ENG

Cheers
Sue

I don?t see how this can be decided by looking at the charts of people we don?t know, or even people we think we know, but we don?t ? unless we can be sure that whatever the combustion or lack of it implies can only be attributed to that condition existing or not existing. I don?t think that?s ever the case, but rather that charts express themselves in themes.

Regarding Lilly?s personal use of combustion, the two shipping charts he demonstrates in his section on first house matters are interesting. In the first, p.162, Mercury is at 17.10 Capricorn, very closely applying to the combustion with the Sun at 17.54 Capricorn ? both in the 7th house. Yet Lilly never mentions Mercury?s combust and peregrine state and allows the Moon?s applying trine to Mercury from the 11th house to show a time of news and recovery of the ship. I think here Lilly has exercised his ?discretion? and concluded that since the Moon is strong and well place, and the general tenor of the chart is positive, Mercury?s combustion is not an issue.

Yet in the second chart on p.165 the Sun is at 28.44 Pisces and Mercury is at 16.15 Pisces ? 12 and a half degrees apart. The Moon is disposed by Mercury which it applies to by opposition; Mercury is in detriment and the general tenor of the chart is much more negative. Lilly refers to Mercury ?entering combustion? even though it is outside the limits and the conjunction of the Sun and Mercury doesn?t perfect until 12 days later, well into the next sign.

I?m not sure what the latter example proves, except that Lilly?s judgements and the emphasis applied to certain techniques varied on an individual basis according to the overall theme of the chart. I can?t understand why Lilly didn?t simply describe Mercury as ?under the sun?s beams? rather than as ?entering combustion?. In that position I would have viewed Mercury as afflicted by being under the beam?s, but that the full effects of combustion were escaped because it didn?t perfect within the current sign. Of course with so many afflictions to Mercury, that?s neither here nor there. The chart as a whole shows the ship was lost, and the judgement was sound. Perhaps we get too strung up on little technicalities?