Skyscript Astrology Forum

I think that Kirk has a point.

Kirk does have a point and so does everyone else. That's the problem with combustion. At least that's the way I see it. Ideas surrounding combustion remind me a bit of the nodes. Everyone has a different opinion.

After I posted the remark Kirk quoted I thought better of it as most planets in any condition have a variety of meanings and there are ways of precisely determining what they mean in many cases. I suppose combust planets should have some latitude in that area as well.

I think there is a difference in that the various delineations of combustion are extreme. Hidden is a long way from powerless. Overpowered is a long way from dead. But the traditional authorities did and modern writers do tend to use extremes in their examples. We're supposed to tone them down.

As for cycles, Morin, who is the reason for starting this thread, would have said the planetary cycles begin and end with their conjunctions to themselves. He believed a planet returning to its natal position underwent something of a renewal. I don't know exactly what he thought of lunations. I'll have to look.

Morin is also tough to pin down on horary versus natal as he didn't think much of horary astrology. Most, if not all, who practiced both used the symbolism similarly. At least the ones that I read seem to do it that way. It's just that horary has something closer to a finality to it. Horary deals with a particular question and a combust significator is pretty important in that it can practically determine a question by itself. Once the question has been answered, we move on to something else. My point is that it is a little tougher to impart such a finality or near finality on on a birth chart. And that only goes to the fact that horary astrology unravels a question, but natal has a more complex task in that it attempts to unravel a life.

I do like Morin's idea of part of the person represented by the combust planet is hidden. That makes more sense to me symbolically as well. I wonder if it works.

Tom

Deb wrote:
I can understand why nativities can seem to make the matter more complex but I think that Kirk has a point. I haven?t found any essential difference in approach that sets, say, Sahl?s use of combustion in mundane or natal astrology apart from what he applied in horary.

People born on a New Moon are not emotionless souls, but they might have a certain kind of emotional naivety or quite the opposite! They can also be quite emotionally 'dark' in that they don't easily express their emotions easily or communicate superficially. I am sure we are talking about very subtle shifts when we are using the planets as significators of personality traits.

Here is a quotation affirming
1. the same approach in nativities and hroraries and
2. an (and what kind of) effect on combusted planets.

Ibn Ezra, The Beginning of Wisdom, Epstein-Translation, p. 129, The eighth chapter [contains] all the judgments for the nativity, for revolutions and for inquiries, and they are one hundred and twenty:

"17) When the benefics and the malefics are in a bad place or combust, they indicate something inferior, and they do neither good nor evil because of their weakness."

Johannes

I have had those sort of experiences, but (my philosophy is) if you are meant to have the book, another opportunity will present itself. It is a good book, but not $300+ good. Not to a Taurean anyway. Unless you can sell it on for $400+ and then that?s fair enough.

As for cycles, Morin, who is the reason for starting this thread, would have said the planetary cycles begin and end with their conjunctions to themselves.

This links in to a point I made earlier about Morin living at a time when our perspective of the cosmos was shifting dramatically. Although he rejected heliocentricity, astrology at that time was changing, so it is much harder to recognise the influence of planetary phases in 17th century works. I think he was grappling with the remnant of the philosophy as we are.

But the traditional authorities did and modern writers do tend to use extremes in their examples. We're supposed to tone them down.

Also, there is ? in general ? a big difference between descriptions of planets which are combust, and those which are combust, and also unfortunate in other ways.

Deb wrote:This links in to a point I made earlier about Morin living at a time when our perspective of the cosmos was shifting dramatically. Although he rejected heliocentricity, astrology at that time was changing, so it is much harder to recognise the influence of planetary phases in 17th century works. I think he was grappling with the remnant of the philosophy as we are.

This reminds me of a remark of Jim Tester in 'A History of Western Astrology' on page 234/235 where he compares Kepler and Morin.

Jim Tester's 'A History of Western Astrology wrote: Kepler and Jean-Baptiste Morin are almost complementary to one another as thinkers. Kepler in a sense wants to look back to a Neo-Platonist, or rather Neo-Pythagorean world of number-forms and solid mathematical figures, all fitting into a harmony that made sense of the whole: a view of the world as has been said Ficino and Pico would have wholy sympathised with. Morin wants to look forward - in very much his own way - into the next age, to produce a logical, coherent whole into which astrology fits with (corrected) modern scientific ideas and practice as part of the whole pattern, which includes a proper form of divination. But Kepler belongs to the future, and his training and experience and even ways of looking at problems are modern. Whereas Morin's whole background - his his geocentrism, his anti-Cartesian, anti-Gassendi 'science', his alchemy and astrology - keeps him firmly facing backwards He could not avoid belonging to the past any more than Kepler could avoid, even had he tried, belonging to the future.

I mentioned this some time back on another thread (it didn't go over well), but I do think that Morin had a bias against combustion due to his natal chart. With Venus and Jupiter combust, and Mercury if one counts out-of-sign planets, Saturn heading into combustion, and the Moon just breaking away from under the Sun's beams, I can see an innate resistance on his part to the idea of weakness or dependency (As in my post above: power depends on the king). It all involves a very busy 12th house in his chart. With Aries rising and a crabby and insecure Mars in fall in Cancer trine the 12th house Sun and planets I think we're dealing with a major part of Morin. His biography with its arrogance and battles looks like a good fit. He didn't like combustion, but he sure seemed to want to stand on his own and rule.

We like to separate ourselves and other astrologers from our astrology in order to be able to peer in safely, but we are very much a part of it. To a large extent astrologers are astrology. Of course we should look at what Morin had to say about combustion, but I think we should also keep in mind that we are possibly seeing him dissociating himself from weakness and dependency and presenting a faulty argument because of it. At the very least, it makes the topic even more interesting.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/morinchart.html

Il see two reasons why combustion should not affect the inner quality of a planet.

1) Combustion is an accidental debility, so it lessens the strength or power of the planet, but not its quality. Therefore a man having Mercury combust will just as intelligent as if his Mercury was not combust.

2) The combust planet being near the Sun, they will mix their qualities. But the Sun has a considerable part to play in shaping the native's character. Therefore what the combust planet represents will be important in the native's personality.

I have been looking through a small collection of 60 to 80 charts of celebrities which I have for reference. It appears that about 50% have at least one planet combust.

In my opinion, a combust planet will bring troubles to the native, related to what this planet means generally and in the chart. I agree also on the hidden character of the things connected with this planet. Regarding Morin's combust Mercury (but is it combust ?), it is true that his grand work, the Astrologia Gallica, took him 30 years to write and was only published 5 years after his death. So it can be said this book remained hidden for a long time. And later, it remained unread for very long, due to the decline of astrology.

Many intellectuals have a combust Mercury. This is not so surprising, since Mercury meets the Sun 3 times a year. Here are a few names : Louis Pasteur, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Marcel Proust, Beethoven. But Heinrich Von Kleist has Mercury in cazimi. By the way, Karl Marx has the Moon (which means the people) combust.

I mentioned this some time back on another thread (it didn't go over well), but I do think that Morin had a bias against combustion due to his natal chart. With Venus and Jupiter combust,

Like all astrologers he had lots of biases. I can't read his mind, but if he were simply anti-combustion because to admit it would make his own chart weaker, he wouldn't be the first to rationalize like this. The thing is in his chart, both Jupiter and Venus are not only in great dignity, but they besiege the Sun in a friendly way. I think he could have found enough loopholes in theory to both allow for combustion and rationalize why it didn't apply to him if he wanted to. It's no secret that he had a high opinion of himself.

It is always better to criticize the idea not the man. His ideas make sense to me. I've never been too comfortable with combustion since I've seen charts delineated by people who treat combustion as the worst thing that can happen, yet they ignore it when it suits them in delineation. It's tough to take that sort of thing seriously.

I'm also wary of treating visual astrology as though it trumps everything else, when we want it to, but we can ignore those aspects of visual astrology when it suits us as well. I understand why the ancients may have considered combustion a problem, but I'm not certain that we are obligated to accept that simply because the visual aspect is so plain to see. That the origin of combustion is visual is obvious. It just doesn't follow that it is such a powerful accidental dignity that it overpowers essential dignity.

Tom

Like all astrologers he had lots of biases. I can't read his mind, but if he were simply anti-combustion because to admit it would make his own chart weaker, he wouldn't be the first to rationalize like this.

I'm sure he wasn't so worried about his chart, but about his image, the image he projected. His fellow astrologers would know the historical arguments of weakness and powerlessness concerning combustion. I say this was shaky ground for him, and that he was trying to lead those who were astrologically savvy away from seeing his possible weakness. As you said, his high opinion of himself is (and was) no secret. Of course it's much more subtle than this and would have been unconscious on his part. And frankly, I'm not sure I'm delineating it correctly. But I do feel that his anti-combustion opinions are connected with his 12th house combust planets, which are aspected by his ASC ruler.

The thing is in his chart, both Jupiter and Venus are not only in great dignity, but they besiege the Sun in a friendly way.

Now were into that argument! Do combust planets in domicile or exaltation really have ?great dignity?? It's hard to imagine them able to do anything friendly when they're consumed in flames. I'm not sure yet how to work with it, but I do tend to favor the idea that the Sun is 'burning them up' and taking their qualities unto itself. This is why I'm not sure I'm delineating Morin's combust planets correctly. His Sun would seem to be stronger by taking on the qualities and abilities of the combust planets [*], so that would appear to make Morin stronger . But there are 'consumed' planets in his chart and they are in charge of houses and need to be acting as able lords. That could provide feelings of weakness and vulnerability. Perhaps it's Morin's Sun that we're hearing ? the consuming Sun that then turns around and speaks against combustion because it knows there are vulnerable spots.

Yes, we could carefully consider the ideas of the man and not the man himself. However, it's reasonable to approach the ideas carefully if a proud and arrogant man possibly developed those ideas in order to lead others away from seeing his faults.



[*] Or is it simply a Sun that pilfers qualities, a Sun that can end up over-stuffed and propped up against the fence? Not much true strength there.

I see your point but .... (you knew that was coming).

Do combust planets in domicile or exaltation really have ?great dignity??

Great essential dignity. Jupiter in Pisces is in domicile and Venus in Pisces is in her exaltation. This is great dignity, and if they wrapped themselves around the ruler of my second house in such a fashion I would expect to be wealthy and popular and sexy. Furthermore both these planets disposit or "rule" a peregrine Sun. They can't do either if they are consumed by the Sun. This is the problem with the "powerless" argument. If the argument is correct, then this weakened Sun is stronger than these two highly essentially dignified planets. Some astrologers would make the argument that the power of the Sun is so great by comparison to the other planets, no matter how dignified they are, the Sun does render them powerless or at least makes them a lot weaker. But then, if the argument holds, the Sun has no dispositors in this chart.

It's hard to imagine them able to do anything friendly when they're consumed in flames.

But are they "consumed in flames?" That is the issue. I don't accept that. I like the idea of hidden better because that is what is happening. We can't see the planets therefore the symbolism is something hidden not something burnt. I don't know enough about his life to be sure if this works in his chart. The bulk of the biographies are written in French. If he is correct then the things represented by Venus and Jupiter would be hidden (leave the others out for a moment) by Morin. The fact that the "combust" planets are posited in the house of hidden things complicates the delineation. Jupiter is in and rules the 12th house as well as the 8th and 9th (Regiomontanus cusps - his preferred house system). Venus rules the 7th and Taurus is intercepted in the 1st. He considered Venus a co-ruler of his ASC.

What did he hide? I can't be sure, but I never read a peep about his marriage if he had one or not. I was told by Robert Corre that he was known to do a bit of bed hopping and he is silent on that, but I would expect that under any conditions since the partners were often married. He mentions illnesses and I think it was Corre who told me he suffered from an occasional dose of a venereal disease or two, something he would keep secret.

I can't be sure that the above is valid astrology or biography. I can't help thinking that his observation in book 16 that "combust" planets indicate something the native will keep hidden, was based on his own experience.

Morin does what a lot of modern astrologers do, and that is cite their own charts as examples of their astrology. I've done it, too, but I try to avoid it since the astrologer is a little too close to the subject for objective conclusions.

His Sun would seem to be stronger by taking on the qualities and abilities of the combust planets

This is what Morin and others would argue happens with any conjunction: the stronger planet influences the weaker one - not vice-versa or far less so. But the the symbolism of the Sun consuming in flames is said to be more of destruction of the planets rather than strengthening the Sun.

I think the difference here is that you and I see combustion a bit differently and we each draw our conclusions from a premise the other doesn't accept.

Tom

Hmm .... hidden or burnt? I'm still trying to figure out what to do with combustion (if anything), but I do like the 'hidden' idea. But 'burnt' isn't so bad either. It's important to keep in mind that it's part of a process and the chart depicts a moment in that process. The planets aren't being destroyed, but are going through a periodic regeneration, so it's ultimately a beneficial process for them. After combustion comes the oriental phase that the superior planets are so fond of. If we freeze the process in time by grasping on to a motionless chart, thereby viewing the combust planets as being permanently weakened, maimed or destroyed, then we're going to have the wrong idea of what's going on.

But the the symbolism of the Sun consuming in flames is said to be more of destruction of the planets rather than strengthening the Sun.

The trouble with this is that we all probably have seen the Sun conjunct, say, Mars, Jupiter or Saturn in natal charts and have found the conjunction to be very descriptive of the person. If the Sun merely weakened or destroyed the planet then the person wouldn't and couldn't take on the planet's traits. A Sun-conjunct-Mars person couldn't be extra assertive or aggressive and a Sun-conjunct-Saturn person couldn't be extra dour, serious or disciplined. The Sun would be conjunct a defeated and powerless planet. This is why I said that the Sun takes something for itself from the planet. It's kind of like the Sun holds the planet's clothes while the planet takes a flame shower. ... ... I should probably stop for now.

The planets aren't being destroyed, but are going through a periodic regeneration, so it's ultimately a beneficial process for them.

How about purification by fire? Keep in mind, Morin, whose idea started this thread, did believe planets went through a periodic regeneration, but that regeneration took place when the planet conjuncts its original position at the beginning of the world, and that position was not known except for the Sun's regeneration at 0 degrees Aries where it was at the beginning of Creation. He is a tad vague on how he knows this.

The other regeneration in natal astrology takes place when the planet returns to its original place in the birth chart. Of particular importance is the regeneration of the Sun or solar return. He would not look at combustion as a period of regeneration, and if we do, Mercury must be the most energized planet in the solar system.

Now if other astrologers adopted this regeneration idea, I've missed it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. Perhaps there are authorities who make this claim. It doesn't seem unreasonable.

If we freeze the process in time by grasping on to a motionless chart, thereby viewing the combust planets as being permanently weakened, maimed or destroyed, then we're going to have the wrong idea of what's going on.

This is a good point and it is covered by authorities who are of the "burnt up" persuasion. It is also valid for things other than combustion. We "freeze" the chart in order to get a handle on the nature of the individual. How that individual develops or how that life unfolds is shown by primary directions and/or secondary progressions. Moderns might wish to toss in solar arc directions.

Planets just entering combustion are more trouble than planets about to leave it as they "disintegrate (for lack of a better term)" over time as the life plays out. Planets leaving combustion will one day be free of it. The imprint is still there in both cases, but the effects are different.

But again Cardan and others said those planets combust in a natal chart are "powerless." That's destruction and it is what makes their argument difficult to sustain, in my opinion.

The trouble with this is that we all probably have seen the Sun conjunct, say, Mars, Jupiter or Saturn in natal charts and have found the conjunction to be very descriptive of the person.

True. We of the hidden persuasion are not arguing that there is no effect by conjunction. I think that is the point, that the conjunction has an effect, but the burning up of the planet is not valid. That conjunction cannot have influence if one planet is powerless. Although it can have a weakened effect, if it is only weakened and not rendered powerless.

Tom