Skyscript Astrology Forum

Hello All,

I?ve been really tied up with Holiday stuff, so I hope whatever has passed since I last wrote isn?t covered here. I had this really clever response dreamed up and started to write, when I began to look a bit more seriously into combustion. What I found mildly startled me. Combustion is a medieval concept. It is not Hellenistic in origin, but probably Arab. Ptolemy, Dorotheus, and Abu Ma?shar, to mention just three, do not mention it at all. Among my texts (hardly a complete library), the earliest mention of it is Al biruni, and it is possible, in fact probable that his idea comes from something a bit different in Tetrabiblos.

Ptolemy, and Dorotheus discuss the issue of the qualities of oriental and occidental and the relative increase/decrease of strength those qualities represent. There is no mention of ?under the beams,? ?combustion,? or "cazimi." There is nothing that remotely approaches the later or even contemporary delineations of those terms.

Ptolemy discusses the positions of the Superior planets and their distance from the Sun in longitude and used 15 degrees, to determine when these planets would be ?eastern (oriental)? or ?western (occidental).? For the inferior planets, Venus and Mercury, he used 7 degrees. It is apparently from this that Al biruni derived ?under the beams? and ?combustion.? The ?heart of the Sun (cazimi),? is the turning point for Ptolemy, and that?s it. Things seem pretty much the same for Dorotheus.

In Charles Burnett?s translation of The Abbreviation of the Introduction to Astrology, a note on page 19 says this in part:

?Dorotheus and Abu Ma?shar agree on the number of degrees for Saturn and Mars being Under the Rays. Neither mentions the distinction between under the Rays and Combustion which forms part of the later tradition.?

I was wondering why I found no mention of combustion in Paulus or Ibn Ezra for that matter. I just figured I missed it, and I admit I might have.

So it is fair to say that we can safely ignore Paulus, Ptolemy, et al when trying to determine whether or not a planet is combust out of sign. Ptolemy and Dorotheus dwell on the gain or loss of moisture as the planets encounter the Sun within a specified number of degrees. In fact, we can re-think the whole thing, if we want to, or we can claim Al biruni as our source and just stop there. But if Al biruni can claim, directly or indirectly, that planet and Sun do not need to be in the same sign, then so can Lilly, a Ptolemy man, claim otherwise (unless we find more).

In The Astrologer?s Guide 1886 edition, the editor, William C. Eldon Serjeant, makes a peculiar observation in a footnote on page 18. On that page Lilly in response to the 53rd consideration lists the separation by degrees for under the beams, combustion, and cazimi (without mentioning signs). Serjeant objects to Lilly?s depiction of cazimi as beneficial:

?This fortitude is very doubtful; a planet so situated should be regarded as in the worst state of combustion.?

I don?t know anything about Serjeant, but his lack of familiarity with cazimi or his rejection of it as being positive is interesting.

So Al biruni, or some near contemporary or contemporaries of his developed the concept (assuming my desktop research has merit) and Lilly and Lilly?s students are the only ones that definitely defined combustion as having to occur in the same sign as the Sun. Any others? Yes, I checked through Book XXI of Morinus and he doesn?t even mention it. His concern with planetary strength seems to depend on essential dignity and placement only, and combustion is not among his accidental debilities. I somewhat hastily went through Books XVIII, XXI, and XXII, and found no mention at all. Given Morinus? disdain for ?Arab? astrology, this is not too surprising.

So where do we go from here? The Hellenists were concerned with gaining and losing moisture, not position in signs or visibility or being ?burnt up.? Al biruni may have taken Ptolemy?s range for superior and inferior planets and converted that to under the beams and combustion, and used Ptolemy?s turning point as the spot for cazimi, but more work is needed to make this statement. Maybe, the moderns are right for the wrong reasons. Maybe we need to re-think combustion, etc.

Whatever we do, we can do it after Christmas, and with that I wish you all a Very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.

Best wishes

Tom

I thought I did find reference in Dorotheus but I could be wrong. And I'm also confident that Abu Ma'shar talks about it. But I am away from my books at the moment. I can't understand it myself but my parents don't appear to have any astrology books in the house. I know that Ptolemy and others talk about planets conjunct the Sun as attendants (was there something about spear carriers in there as well?) As Tom mentions, we can carry on after Christmas.

Happy Christmas or whatever it is you chose to celebrate to all of you and stay safe.

Sue

I was just working on some charts in CA (nothing to do with combustion) and came across something interesting. In the chart on page 165, ?Example of Another Ship?, Lilly mentions that Mercury was entering combustion even though at that stage they were too far apart to be considered combust. In her footnote to this, Deb says:

Some authors do not allow combustion unless it perfects within the current sign. Lilly here, shows that he allows the state of ?entering combustion? consideration (Mercury and the Sun are 12? 29' apart and will not meet until they get to 11? Aries.)

So there we have consideration of combustion even though both planets are not currently in orb of combustion and have to move signs for it to be combust according to the rules of Lilly. So sign boundaries appear to be a little flexible at this point. I have a little trouble following the use of Lilly?s rules of combustion and accepting ?consideration of entering combustion? when Mercury is not combust and won?t be combust in its current sign or even within orb of being combust. Venus, however, is currently within orb of being combust the Sun (7? 39') but is already in Aries. So, for those people who accept out of sign combustion, Venus is already combust the Sun. What I find interesting is that Venus will be combust the Sun within the same sign long before Mercury will be. So why would Mercury?s combustion be considered but not that of Venus? It might well be that Venus was not an issue in this particular chart but it is still likely that Lilly would not have given consideration to Venus being combust or entering combustion if Venus was a significator. I guess there is a possible argument that there is a difference between saying Mercury is moving towards combustion whereas Venus is not moving towards combustion but is ready to receive combustion from the Sun. But I haven?t quite worked out what this might be yet.

I?m sure I will get over this combustion thing soon. I'm making the most of it while I can. I won't have as much time to play when uni goes back in February. In the meantime -


Dorotheus, writing in the 1st century CE, says ?The planets, if they are under the rays of the Sun towards the west, their power disappears and they have no power.? - Carmen Astrologicum, Chapter Six.

Firmicus, writing in the 300?s CE, says, ?..it should be stated that nearness to the Sun is harmful to all planets.? - Mathesis Book II Chapter VIII

Alchabitius (who, like Abu Ma?shar, died before Al Biruni was born) is quoted by Bonatus as saying that after Mercury and Venus have been under the Sun?s rays they are combust going toward appearance until they are seen. - Liber Astronomiae Ch LXXXV

In an earlier post on another thread, Tom quotes Abu Ma'shar (787 - 886 CE) as quoted in ?The Abbreviation of The Introduction to Astrology? translated by Charles Burnet.

"With regard to the weakness of the planets it is if they are slow in their motion, or in their first station or retrograding. The most harmful retrogradation is the retrogradation of the two inferior planets, especially when, in addition to their retrogradation, they are burnt [combust]."

These quotes sound awfully close to combustion and under the Sun?s beams to me. I couldn?t find anything where Firmicus specifically mentions the terms but the principle is clear. It doesn't apper that Al Biruni is responsible for bringing these terms to us.

Greeks did consider being too close to the Sun a debility, but the refinements of this may not be Greek in origin.

It would be misleading to consider the Greeks as the originators of the concept. The symbolic interpretation that we apply to a combust planet was firmly established in early Babylonian astrology and oriental star lore. It?s probably the oldest and one of the most consistent astrological principles ? that a planet (or star) loses its strength and power as its visibility is lost in the Sun?s light, that it is stripped (and purified) through conjunction with the Sun, and that as it emerges from the conjunction its reappearance symbolises the tentative renewal of vitality and a new cycle of experience.


The earliest existing nativity is a Babylonian cuneiform text recording a horoscope drawn on the 29th April 410 BC. This mentions Mercury as invisible because it had ?set?, (ie., entered its heliacal setting, where it cannot be seen by day or night because of its closeness to the Sun). Where planets had set, they were not considered capable of exerting an influence. The Egyptian integration of the symbolic principles of ?combustion? can be identified as early as 1278 BC by reference to an inscription found upon the tomb of Seti I, but it probably extends much further back in history. The inscription, (which states that as a star dies it is purified in the house of Duat, from where, after 70 days of invisibility, it is reborn), was used by Neugebauer (The Exact Sciences in Antiquity), to show that the 70-day ritual used in Egyptian funeral rites was based upon the 70-day period of invisibility that Sirius endured when it ?set? into the Sun. The re-emergence of Sirius coincided with the summer solstice and the annual inundation of the Nile during the period of the development of the calendar, so was used as a signal to start the New Year festivities.

The ancient Egyptian astrological perspective differed from that of Hellenistic Greece because by comparison there was much less emphasis upon the planets in favour of the stars and constellations. But the principle of death, weakness, lack of strength and inhibited freedom that is traditionally ascribed through combustion perpetuates a viewpoint that appears to originate from their philosophy. At the moment it looks that way, though earlier undiscovered or unexploited references may well exist elsewhere.

Since the use of the symbolic significance of union with the Sun predates the development of the zodiac, there is of course the argument that in its original form ?combustion? derives from observational astrology in which sign cusps play no part. I wonder if this issue actually hit a stalemate with Tom?s first post ? Hellenistic astrology moved the emphasis more squarely upon philosophical principles, and if an astrologer accepts sign boundaries as representative of distinct areas of influence; so that, for example, they consider an aspect can ?escape? perfection through the change of signs, or that the movement of a significator over a sign cusp represents the ending of one set of circumstances and the beginning of a new set of circumstances, (which all medieval authorities do as far as I?m aware), they have a valid precedent for taking the same approach to the manifestation of whatever is symbolised by combustion. Obviously throughout history astrologers have varied in regard to how much they allow philosophical constructs to interfere with astronomical events, and someone like Al Biruni, primarily an astronomer and scientist, might be expected to regard limits of visibility as more essentially important than the use of sign cusps as mystical tools imbibed with philosophical power.

The interesting point about Lilly?s definition is that it is so unambiguous and yet we can?t identify an earlier source. Ramesey?s text, published just a few years later, doesn?t mention any need for combustion to apply within the same sign. Generally Lilly was careful to state the consensus of opinion for his time even though he could be very creative in the way that he put the criteria to use. What we can tell from his chart examples is that Lilly didn?t have the strict ?it?s in and so relevant? or ?it?s out so insignificant? approach that most modern horary astrologers assume. He maintained a constant awareness of past and future planetary events, which he brought into his judgements if he felt they were descriptive or relevant to the situation. He not only draws judgement from planets ?entering combustion? when they are out of orb, but in his ?If Presbytery Shall Stand?? example refers to the Moon, at 13.37 Libra, as ?entering Via Combusta? and uses it as one of the testimonies for his negative assessment of the situation. I?m not sure that we should draw too many conclusions from his astrological use of what he would have viewed as astronomical conditions. He seems to be considering the significance of future events upon a present situation, but we can?t know from that whether he would have adhered to his own definition when describing a planet as currently combust, or whether that would have been given a much deeper and more significant meaning. The inconsistencies in definition are one thing, it?s a whole new question with regard to what is ?correct? or ?incorrect? when it comes to deriving a judgement. Looking at planetary positions is only really astronomy until someone takes responsibility for drawing an astrological meaning, and not only do opinions differ generally, but I wouldn't be surprised if they varied even within the individual circumstances by which each astrologer viewed them relevant.

Because I'd say there are two ways of looking at this, and both work within their own perspectives, I don?t believe there is any way to prove the issue conclusively. Even historical examples of out of sign combustion can?t really help, because that won?t take into account the possibly of equally as many examples where combustion wasn?t considered because it was out of sign. We can prove the existence of the first, but not the latter, so how would we be able to judge the dominant influence?

I?m a bit on the sidelines with this - I recognise out of sign combustion myself because I feel that the element of losing power through association with the loss of visibility is fundamentally significant, but I still consider the crossing of sign cusps as relevant in symbolising a threshold or barrier that may or may not prevent the manifestation. I've found this discussion very interesting to follow and the research is very valuable. One point it demonstrates is how we have such a plethora of traditional reference when it comes to theory, but a real dearth of practical examples, and yet the latter gives us so much food for thought. I'm sure that is one of the reasons that Lilly has become so distinguished.

Thank you Deb. There seems to be very little left to say after yor response.

I did mention a response I received from one William Johnston to my thought that the concept of combustion may have been medieval in origin. I based that on some very quick desktop research, and I now no longer believe it thanks to Sue and Deb. Mr. Johnston gave me permission to post his reply and I do so without comment for now anyway. Keep in mind this is a post on a board. It is not supposed to be a scholarly work. He seems to be knowledgeable about Greek astrology.

Hi Tom,

The "various distinctions in a planet's relationship to the Sun" were not
being formed then; the Arabs were doing their best to organize and understand the distinctions they saw being made in the Hellenistic writings. They were faced with the same challenges that we are in approaching this material, but ironically had fewer texts at their disposal. The concept transformations that occurred in the Arabic period are worth studying; at some point I'd like to get into the what, how, and why regarding the changes in the astrological tradition during that time in this forum. I've mentioned elsewhere that applications & separations were separate from aspect doctrine in Hellenistic astrology but became conflated in the Arabic aspect doctrine; a similar thing happened with the conceptually and functionally distinct modes of rulership in Hellenistic astrology. In Arabic astrology, the functional distinctions are largely replaced by their weighting scheme: domicile rulership is stronger than exaltations, which are stronger than triplicity lords, etc. In the calculation of the Almuten, which derives from a technique introduced by Ptolemy (the Ptolemaic dispositor), it's significant that the Arabs substituted the decanic rulerships ("Face") for the fifth Ptolemaic dignity ("Phase or Configuration") as "Under the Beams" is part of the Phase ("phasis") doctrine. Exploring whether or not this substitution was intentional or inadvertent will have to wait until such time as we get into the how & why of the Arabic concept transformations.

First, let me give you the short answer to your question.

You won't find a Greek term corresponding to Combust or a corresponding distinction explicitly made within the Under the Beams phase in the Hellenistic writings. Elsewhere, the Hellenistic writers do state that being within 3 degrees of the Sun is bad for a planet. The Cazimi concept appears to be a late Hellenistic development; Rhetorius states that Ptolemy defined a planet being "in the heart of the Sun" (which the Arabs translated as cazimi) astronomically but didn't interpret it astrologically, which he proceeded to do. (There may have been a Hellenistic precedent for the number of minutes the Arabs assigned to this distinction, but I need to look into that more closely; for the Greek writers, being in the heart of the Sun meant being in the same degree). Hephaistio, another late Hellenistic* author also mentions the condition, stating that the handing over of a planet's power/significations to the Sun happens later in life if the planet is in the heart of the Sun.

The oldest frame of reference in astrology is the horizon rather than the
zodiac; the roots of the phasis doctrine, which involves the Solar phase
cycle in reference to the horizon, go way back. When a planet is at certain
points in the cycle, it is said to be making a phasis (a word Schmidt has
translated in the astrological context as "an appearance that speaks"). A
planet making a phasis has a prominence similar to that of being in it's own place; hence, Ptolemy used this condition as the fifth dignity in his
Ptolemaic Dispositor scheme. A planet makes a phasis when:

1) It first emerges from under the beams (Heliacal Rising) and is visible on
the horizon rising (Heliacal Rising in the East) or setting (Heliacal Rising
in the West) for the first time since its period of invisibility;

2) When it reaches its first station (before going retrograde);

3) When it reaches its second station (at the end of its retrograde period);

4) When it's about to go under the beams (Heliacal Setting) and is visible
on the horizon rising (Heliacal Setting in the East) or setting (Heliacal
Setting in the West) for the last time before entering its next period of
invisibility.

In pre-astronomical astrology, these first and last appearances were very
significant (particularly those of Venus, which can be quite dramatic
visually). As we're talking about visibility, the period of being under the
beams isn't further differentiated into combust and cazimi in this context;
the planet is either visible or not.

Here's the wrinkle. First, a word about ranges of degrees. The figures 3, 7, and 15 crop up repeatedly, not just in applications and separations, where they fed into the orb concept when conflated into the Arabic aspect
doctrine, but elsewhere as well. Although the Hellenistic astrologers knew
that the actual visibility of a planet depended on the brightness as well as
the latitude of the planet, they preferred to use an idealized value of 15
degrees from the Sun for the period of under the beams for all five of the
non-luminary wandering stars (whether this was for practical or theoretical reasons will be discussed elsewhere). The Hellenistic astrologers considered a planet in a natal chart to be making a phasis if it would reach or had reached one of the four points defined above within seven days. This means a slow moving planet like Saturn could be making a phasis while only 8 degrees from the Sun, still technically under the beams; the faster the planet was moving, the closer to the 15 degree point it would have to be to make a phasis.


Best Regards,

Bill

*(A little note for my fellow Virgonians here: technically, these guys -
Ptolemy and Valens as well, for that matter - are not writing in the
Hellenistic era as historians define it. The astrology that originated in
the Hellenistic era proper was the astrology that was practiced throughout
the Greco-Roman era. Our use of the term Hellenistic is specific within the
context of the history of astrology, and as such we include the Greco-Roman era up into the early Byzantine era when we use it).

Thanks for posting this Tom. Some of the comments are very interesting and probably deserve a more thoughtful continuation. (If only life blessed me with time to spare!)

Sue - I recently noticed that Henry Coley?s definition of combust doesn?t mention any need for the planets to be within the same sign, only within 8 and a half degrees of each other (Key to Astrology, Vol 1., p.95) 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.

Okay, that's interesting. I don't have anything of Coley's. But wasn't he a contemporary of Lilly and, in fact, did some work in conjunction with Lilly? I have found that many of the astrologers who were contemporaries of Lilly (e.g. John Gadbury) limited their use of combustion to within the same sign only but in those cases it is difficult to work out whether they are simply following Lilly, observing what they believe is tradition, or have come to this belief themselves. I guess we need specific examples like the one you mentioned that will discuss out of sign combustion in delineations. I don't think I have come across any so far.

One thing I did find out a couple of days ago (that someone may well have mentioned but I missed) is that vedic astrologers use combustion purely on the principle of invisibility and consider combustion without regard for sign boundaries.

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.

I really hate to be the one to raise this again, but as a newcomer to traditional, I really need someone with more knowledge and experience (not to mention books) to tell me which version of this rule I'm going to adopt.

I've read this thread a number of times.
Everybody seems to have changed their mind at least once.
I'm happy that out of sign conjunctions are a no-no. (See also JF's explanation on p86-87 of The Real Astrology, this made it very clear for me).
I still don't know whether out of sign combustion is a no-no.


Deb's last 2 posts seem to be the most convincing - are you still happy with this Deb? Anyone? Has anyone changed the way they work as a result of this discussion? Did anyone work on the Archer chart?

While I understand cazimi, combust and under the beams as being 17' and 8.5 and 17 deg respectively. Would someone please explain why 8.5 deg is a cutoff and also the difference between combust and under the beams - is it just a matter of degree - pun intended and not

.

Hi Sungem,

I don't think anyone really changed their mind during this discussion and we all just ended up right where we started. I think you will find that, for most traditional horary astrologers, out of sign combustion is a 'no-no'. 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. I don't see any reason to change a long tradition just because Lilly did, particularly since I haven't seen any good reasoning from him as to why he did it. The irony is that he allows for out of sign aspects, which most traditional astrologers would not accept. I realise most people would not agree with me about combustion and I can't back up my belief about combustion with strong evidence. One of these days I might try to look at a series of charts with various stages of combustion and see what shows. I don't see that Lilly always has to be the final word when it comes to horary.

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