Tom wrote:[It seems as though he is a player involved with both querent and quesited, and precise knowledge of who he is may help unravel thiscolor=blue]

She is querant, he is quested, i dont know who saturn could be, shes asking the question about him.

I would not consider Mercury to be combust since he is in rulership;

Tom,

I am curious as to your reasoning for this. Is it something you have read or is it just that it makes sense to you?

I've not yet advanced to the point where I start making up my own rules. I leave that to intermediate moderns

That being said, it did a least occur to me that a planet in rulership or exaltation might not be quite the same when close to the Sun as it is when not in dignity, so I asked John Frawley. John told me that this particular topic is one of great debate among authorities, some saying the planet was combust, others saying it behaved more like it was in mutual reception with the Sun. He did not cite an authority on either side of the issue. I took his word for it because John doesn't make things up. He added that his own practice seemed to confirm the mutual reception idea.

During my natal studies with John we studied William Lilly's chart or at least the one given to us by Gadbury. In that chart Venus is in Taurus 50 minutes from an exact conjunction with the Sun. In that lesson John noted that Lilly's Venus was not burned up by combustion but rather it was hidden. In John's words his heart of gold was concealed from the rest of the world. When I re-read that I laughed since I am reading Lilly's autobiography and there is a story in there where he finds a woman who owed money or something and Lilly turned her over to the authorities. She was sentenced to be whipped and serve one year in prison. A few sentences later he says something like "Another good thing I did. ..." Yes this is truly a hidden heart of gold.

Anyway I adhere to the same rule in horary, i.e. a planet in great dignity is not combust. The reason I said that I would not consider it combust was not an allusion to an opinion I'd formed unilaterally, but rather a tacit acknowledgement that there are authorities who disagree with this position. But as I said, it does make sense to me.

Tom

Tom wrote:

I've not yet advanced to the point where I start making up my own rules. I leave that to intermediate moderns

Tom wrote:
That being said, it did a least occur to me that a planet in rulership or exaltation might not be quite the same when close to the Sun as it is when not in dignity, so I asked John Frawley. John told me that this particular topic is one of great debate among authorities, some saying the planet was combust, others saying it behaved more like it was in mutual reception with the Sun. He did not cite an authority on either side of the issue. I took his word for it because John doesn't make things up. He added that his own practice seemed to confirm the mutual reception idea.

Tom wrote:
During my natal studies with John we studied William Lilly's chart or at least the one given to us by Gadbury. In that chart Venus is in Taurus 50 minutes from an exact conjunction with the Sun. In that lesson John noted that Lilly's Venus was not burned up by combustion but rather it was hidden. In John's words his heart of gold was concealed from the rest of the world. When I re-read that I laughed since I am reading Lilly's autobiography and there is a story in there where he finds a woman who owed money or something and Lilly turned her over to the authorities. She was sentenced to be whipped and serve one year in prison. A few sentences later he says something like "Another good thing I did. ..." Yes this is truly a hidden heart of gold.