Last night I cast a chart for myself asking whether Self and Him would get back together this week (this past weekend apparently being the weekend for couples to break things off seeing as I know of 4(!) of us who had explosions in our relationships...yikes!).

Now...immediately it looked good since his significator is not only the faster planet, it is applying to trine my significator in very short order (mine being Jupiter at 8Libra57, his Mercury at 7Gemini40 and the aspect occuring at 8Libra57).

However - his significator is combust. His at 7Gemini40 and the Sun at 10Gemini36. Both in the 7th house. Somehow this seems ominous but I don't know quiet why. Except perhaps in a relationship situation he's just too weak to do anything about it? Just thinking out loud there....

Now...the rest of the chart seems to fit. So my question is....do you consider this chart non-radical? Or do you interpret it as showing great fear on his part (per Lily although he was referring to the Querant's significator)? This later possibly indicating he can't or won't for some reason make that move?

I'm quiet curious as to more experienced feedback because I could see it both ways.

his Mercury at 7Gemini40 <snip> However - his significator is combust.

This may be a good place to start such a thread. I explained on the Loveeee thread that I do not consider a planet combust if it is in great dignity, i.e., rulership or exaltation. It seems to me to act more like it is in mutual reception.

According to John Frawley there is or was a debate on this topic amongst various traditional authorites. No I can't name them as he didn't name them for me and I didn't ask. In one lesson of his natal course, during a discussion of Lilly's chart as handed down by Gadbury, the subject of Lilly's Venus in Taurus some 50 minutes from the Sun came up.

John wrote:

Venus is combust (hidden rather than debilitated) and under the earth, so while the Venus stuff is there, Lilly's heart of gold is well hidden.

Now when he says "combust" he means close to the Sun yet not debilitated. In context this is not as contradictory as it appears when he uses the word "combust." Later on in the correspondence he said:

I think the strong but hidden Venus part of this is that he means well.

In another correspondence that I cannot locate, John mentioned the idea that planets in great dignty and close to the Sun act more like they do in mutual reception than "burned up."

I haven't run across an enormous number of these instances, but John's argument makes sense to me, and until I run across enough counter testimony, I'll stick with it.

In this chart, I would take Mercury in Gemini, close to the Sun, not to mean that the relationship is ending, although that is possible, it just isn't shown by Mercury's proximity to the Sun. Rather it means that part of quesited's personality is hidden. Perhaps he is more independent than she realizes (planets in rulership are strong and strength negates dependence).

In the future it would help if the chart data was posted.

Best wishes,

Tom

Thank you for the insight Tom....that's exactly what I was hoping for. I have some comments/questions as soon as I get a chance to come back to the computer for a few minutes. But for reference the chart was cast as follows

31 May 2005 at 6:46PM (EST). 79.49W and 34.12N (South Carolina, USA).
Specific question was 'will Self and Him get back together this week?'

Ascendant was 3Sag18. (I know this is just edging out of 'too early' and may render this not a reliable chart? However it does seem to accurately reflect the question).

Moon is 29Pisces47
Mercury (his significator) 07Gemini40
Jupiter (my significator) 8Libra57
Sun 10Gemini36
Venus 10Pisces41
Mars 26Gemini47
Saturn 24Cancer31

Tom,

In this chart, I would take Mercury in Gemini, close to the Sun, not to mean that the relationship is ending, although that is possible, it just isn't shown by Mercury's proximity to the Sun.

I have a question about combustion of significators but from a different slant...

In a chart that I did a couple of months ago, a similar question was asked, which was "will person a and b break up by june". In relationship questions, the ruler of the 1st (Merc) and 7th (Jup) are taken into consideration, and secondarily the Sun and Venus. In this chart, I found the Moon void of course, and the main signficators separating from an opposition with no reception. However, Venus is coming to a conjunction with the Sun in just 2 degrees. Is this perfection, they will stay together, or combustion, they will break up?

Given that I don't see any other positive indications, it would appear to me that they would break up.

But the question is, is the break up being implied by the combustion of Venus, or simply being re-inforced by the combustion, the main answer is no contact between the main rulers? What is the "strength" of combustion (if this is combustion). Does combustion override other positive factors, if they exist? Or, in this pariticular case, IF this is perfection, does *this* kind of perfection override the negative factors?

Chart data: March 22, 2005, 5:15 pm, Parsippany, NJ, 74W26, 40N51, 21 degrees 56 minutes Virgo ascendant.

Thanks,
- Taurus7 -

Looking at the chart, I'd think the combustion is really what's holding these two folks together. Namely, the sex; she (whoever she is) is pretty much under the thrall of his, um, abilities.

I'd pretty much see the opposition of the first and seven rulers as promising the eventually breakup of the relationship, though they are both retrograding from each other. That and the Moon being void are probably just delaying the situation.

I may be wrong, but for what I remember of CA, combustion is seeing as one of the most afflicting debilities a planet can have, but this may be overcome in several ways, so it is not the mainly factor you should see.

Some people say we should put a minor concern when venus or mercury are concerned, because they stay that way much more than the others, so they are "used to it". Don?t know yet if I agree 100% with that.
Y

Gabe,

Looking at the chart, I'd think the combustion is really what's holding these two folks together. Namely, the sex; she (whoever she is) is pretty much under the thrall of his, um, abilities.

Fascinating, but how did you equate the sun to sex?

I'd pretty much see the opposition of the first and seven rulers as promising the eventually breakup of the relationship, though they are both retrograding from each other. That and the Moon being void are probably just delaying the situation.

While Jup and Mercury were retrograding at the time that the question was asked, they eventually come to an opposition, ephemeris time, I think around the last week of April. I thought that the first aspect that Venus made was interesting, sextile with Mars, ruler of the 8th (house of undoing, death of the relationship??). Meanwhile, the next aspect that Mercury makes is a conjunction with the Sun, yet more combustion; a whammy both ways. Both Venus and Mercury are heading straight into the Sun and getting burned big time! Pluto on the cusp of the 4rth also drew my attention, but wasn't entirely sure how to read that; just looked pretty ominous.

Looking at the chart, I'd think the combustion is really what's holding these two folks together. Namely, the sex; she (whoever she is) is pretty much under the thrall of his, um, abilities.

I'm hoping this is Taurus7's chart spoken of - since otherwise I totally missed something in mine, not to mention the fact that mine is a highly emotional relationship but as of yet not a sexual one

Please bear in mind I'm awfully new at this and learning by every chart and question. But in this case it would seem that the combustion reinforced the already almost forgone conclusion of the rest of the factors that the relationship would break up? See this is why I got so drawn to this combustion question. It can be seen differently. And I too wondered if it's strength overrode other factors (for good or bad) or strengthened them. As in my chart it was the opposite...the indicators seemed positive so did the combustion support this or override this? (BTW - DID they break up?)

I can understand how combustion could indicate 'hidden' traits - I'd have to ponder whether that's the case in my chart. Knowing Him - I'm inclined to look at it as Him being afraid or not willing/able to take action due to an overwhelming constriction from a negative point of view. From a positive point of view it could indicate His 'hidden' strength and willingness to come forward (this also fitting since under the circumstances if he makes one choice vs the other choice). And along that same lines could it be His intentions are hidden?

I'm thinking out loud here - feedback is welcome as is a swat on the head if I'm veering off in the wrong direction.

According to John Frawley there is or was a debate on this topic amongst various traditional authorites. No I can't name them as he didn't name them for me and I didn't ask.

Tom,

This surprises me. I would have thought you'd be the first person to ask for references. Maybe you could ask John for some. I would be interested to see what the authorities have to say about this. Personally, I am not so convinced that a planet in its dignity escapes combustion. It might have more of a chance to escape the effects of combustion but it is still combust. For all our discussions in the past about combustion, it seems that most people accept Lilly's definition which is any planet within 8 deg 30' of the Sun is combust. He says nothing about it escaping combustion if in its dignity. And how far do we go? Do we consider a planet in its rulership and perhaps exaltation but not triplicity etc? I realise with Lilly's Table of Essential Dignities the point scoring would even out with rulership and exaltation, i.e. -5 points for combustion and +5 for rulership but I still think you have to consider that it is combust.

I'm also not sure how this would have worked with the use of combustion in the visibility/invisibility sense. Since it appears that Lilly is the first to specify that combustion must be within sign, how would previous authorities have interpreted this? If combustion is invisibility then it shouldn't matter that a planet is in its dignity.

This surprises me. I would have thought you'd be the first person to ask for references.

Usually, you'd be right. If this were a discussion or research work, I would have asked. But this was in the context of a lesson. I have a rule: if I'm paying someone to teach me, I don't go off on my own, because I can do that for free. He didn't say this was an absolute rule, only that some considered the planet combust and others did not. One has to choose, and based on his experience, he went the "mutual reception" route. Since I"m paying for that experience, so did I.

He says nothing about it escaping combustion if in its dignity.

One of the joys of Christian Astrology is the presence of worked examples. LiIlly often cites rules that he doesn't appear to follow in practice (relationship horaries: he gives the planet the Moon is leaving to the querent and the one to which it applies to the quesited if I don't have that backwards, but he ignores this in practice), and now and again he will do things where there is no hard and set rule such as giving the Presbytery Saturn in Taurus rather than the ruler of the 9th because Saturn in Taurus describes the quesited better than the ruler of the 9th.

I haven't checked on any of charts to see how he uses combustion, but the fact that he doesn't mention a rule about planets in great dignity not being combust, is not enough to persuade me he never did it.

I'm also not sure how this would have worked with the use of combustion in the visibility/invisibility sense.

The idea of a planet having to be in the same sign in order to be combust doesn't work with the visibility/invisibility sense, so a planet in rulership wouldn't have to work that way either, I would imagine.

Apparently the idea is that a planet with so much essential dignity is simply too strong to be destroyed by the Sun and therefore can only be hidden by it. This is a philosophical position of course, and not dependent on visibility/invisibility.

I checked a couple of sources at home and found little one way or the other. I may keep looking when I have the chance. I really hate to ask John because he probably doesn't have the information at his fingertips and would have to make the same effort I should make first.

I would think the fact that a planet is strong would have to have some effect on combustion. We would have no problem looking at say, Mercury in Sagittarius combust and noting that as two debilities, one essential and one accidental. Is it better to have Mercury in Sagittarius and not under the beams or have Mercury in Sagittarius combust? Clearly we would prefer Mercury not to be combust, too. So then wouldn't we think that Mercury in Gemini conjunct the Sun is better than Mercury in Sagittarius conjunct the Sun? John's remarks about Lilily's "heart of gold" remaining hidden show that he doesn't think the combustion is totally neutralized by great dignity.

Tom

I can understand how combustion could indicate 'hidden' traits - I'd have to ponder whether that's the case in my chart. Knowing Him - I'm inclined to look at it as Him being afraid or not willing/able to take action due to an overwhelming constriction from a negative point of view.

Hi,
if we see applying aspects between significators in a horary, it's an indication that the opportunity to come together is there. Willingness to make the move comes primarily from reception betwen significators. In this chart, Mercury (him) is in the term and face of Jupiter (you), showing friendly interest, but not much more. In fact, Mercury recieves Jupiter into its detriment, indicating that something about him or your relationship with him is foreign or alien to you. Does this make sense?
He may well be unable to take action freely or openly due to Mercury's combustion with the Sun, which represents a powerful force that holds him back and forces him to stay hidden. He appears to have the strength and opportunity to act independently *if he chooses*, due to Mercury's dignity, but he cannot yet do so openly because he is tied to the Sun, whatever or whoever that represents. The Sun rules the 9th , which could be a legal requirement or long-distance concern. The 9th is his 3rd, so this could be someone who represents one person in a "guest-host" relationship to him.
Whatever the situation is, in order to meet up with Jupiter, Mercury must move even deeper into combustion, and while essentially strong, he might well find that to be very uncomfortable for him.
Is any of this making sense?

And along that same lines could it be His intentions are hidden?

Yes, but through difficult circumstances, not free choice.
==
Pete

I have a question about combustion of significators but from a different slant...

Hi T,
yes I thought you might, somehow

In relationship questions, the ruler of the 1st (Merc) and 7th (Jup) are taken into consideration, and secondarily the Sun and Venus. In this chart, I found the Moon void of course, and the main signficators separating from an opposition with no reception. However, Venus is coming to a conjunction with the Sun in just 2 degrees. Is this perfection, they will stay together, or combustion, they will break up?

While the Sun and Venus *are* considered, they must be seen as secondary to the main significators. If the main sigs are offering an answer then you must take that first, then look to secondary sigs for confirmation, if they offer any.
Here, both Mercury (the partner) and Jupiter (him) are separating from opposition (actually, the opposition never formed, but you get what I mean), with Mercury moving into combustion, which occurs on March 29th. At some point after this Mercury moves direct and the Sun speeds away from it, freeing Mercury from the combustion. Then on April 27th Mercury finally opposes Jupiter - but a lot has happened to Mercury before that!

Given that I don't see any other positive indications, it would appear to me that they would break up.

I agree, it looks likely.

But the question is, is the break up being implied by the combustion of Venus, or simply being re-inforced by the combustion, the main answer is no contact between the main rulers?

It is being implied by the eventual opposition between Mercury and Jupiter; the combustion of Venus seems to be suggesting that any harmony between them is burning itself out so therefore this contact just reinforces the eventual opposition.

What is the "strength" of combustion (if this is combustion). Does combustion override other positive factors, if they exist? Or, in this pariticular case, IF this is perfection, does *this* kind of perfection override the negative factors?

Whew, so many questions!
In my view, combustion is a MAJOR point of debility, especially if it involves a primary significator. Tom raises a very interesting point about the essential strength of the planet involved, though, and I agree that if the combust planet is essentially strong, either by dignity or exaltation,then it alters the situation significantly. I still feel though, that the sense of being seriously uncomfortable ought to be noted, as well as the likelihood that one may be forced to act surreptitiously.
If the combust planet has little or no essential strength, then it decreases one's freedom to act independently and increases the sense of feeling overpowered by the situation described by the combustion. I'm talking here about a primary significator being combust.
In this chart think the clear answer lies in the eventual opposition of the two primary sigs, with the combustion of Venus acting as a reinforcement.

I notice too that the Moon is void-of-course. As this is really a "third party" horary, and one in which you - presumably - have no involvement, then maybe this is saying that you will never become aware of the eventual flow of events?
Just something for you to ponder, Ms T
==
Pete