Well maybe we do get caught up in technicalities but why have the combustion rule in the first place when you are going to ignore it whenever you like according to the theme of the chart. So if the ship wasn't lost at sea does this mean that Mercury entering combustion wasn't important? How can it not be important in the first example when it is clearly a case of combustion but important in the second case where it wasn't in combustion but will be some time in the future? Obviously combustion is not so debilitating if everything else seems okay. I think I'll just refuse to do charts where any significator is in combustion just so I don't have to think about this issue anymore.

Once again: horary or natal? These tight rules work for horary, but natal charts are entitled to a smearing and loosening of factors. An element of vagueness is appropriate for natal. Natal astrology and horary astrology are very different practices. In the same way, each of us is not an event. Individually, in our separate lives, we are each innumerable events and the cause of events. In taking the deep plunge into astrology I needed to drop a lot of the ?anything goes? which we find often in astrology as it has been revived in the past century or so, but what I more recently have learned is that I now need to also drop much of the ?this is the way it is? of what is now called traditional astrology. Strict rules of the modern traditional astrology are too often mistakenly applied to natal charts in the belief that horary and natal work are similar.

In considering combustion in the context of natal charts (which, frankly, I find to almost be frowned upon on this horary-favored site) I haven?t seen where it is really all that important and critical to chart interpretation. As Deb put it ?charts express themselves in themes?. I would be interested in hearing other views, though.

Well my interest in pursuing this was to try and find some charts where we could get some confirmation that the combustion was or wasn?t working out of sign. This then got to ?does the second planet?s essential dignity by rulership and/or exhaltation negate the influence of combustion? ? i.e. was this one of the reasons Lilley sometimes appeared to ignore it?

As I said I don?t have client charts, but had run my natal sets for the year and a quick look came up with some combustion examples that appear to be working or not as the case may be. I?m sure others of you could find similar examples. That reinforces in a way what Deb is saying - that it?s difficult, if not impossible to know whether the combustion worked or not in the charts of public figures.

However I think I?ve figured out how to do this URL thing to Astrodienst now without it expiring so I?ll give it another try. All charts are Placidus since they?re not horaries, and since you can?t get a chart without aspect lines, I requested all aspects drawn in order to get them to the Asc and MC, but with the orbs cut by 50% and the charts are reduced to 73% to fit easily on screen for you. If you can?t make out some of the degrees, scroll to the bottom grid where they?re clearer.

I know nothing about Derek Jacobi except that he is an actor.

This is an out-of-sign (OOS) combustion between sun and mercury in the second, neither planet has dignity as described above. So what?s the broadbrush here, taking the combustion at its simplest level? If the OOS combustion was working, it should have prevented Jacobi earning income through the use of his mind/memory. Plainly that isn?t the case, (try memorizing a Shakespeare play) despite any dignity.

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

This is Jeffrey Archer. Writer, member of the House of Lords, scandal, kicked out of Lords, imprisoned, wrote more in prison. That it? (Don?t know if he?s still in prison).

(Couldn?t find Mark, Somerset so used Martock, Somerset hope that?s right). Two combustions in the 10th, no rulership or exhaltation. Neither combustion appeared to work but the conjunctions did. Archer had position and achieved fame and wealth through his writing (Jupiter) and then lost it (Saturn could be argued both ways). The timing of one and the other would presumably be found in progressions or returns.

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

I?ll include my own again simply because I can provide some feedback.
First the lunar chart takes effect on 19 April (Tuesday) with an OOS combustion between Sun and Venus. Venus is in the 5th in Taurus. Monday morning 18 April was when I hopped on to the forum only to find Kenneth had revived and moved the FFW again. I really did have a tremendous laugh at it all. Monday night I went straight from work to dinner and a movie with some colleagues. It seems to me Venus was doing her entertainment thing in the 5th with no problem (and a little help from the Moon trine). However it seems to have operated a day early, my birth time may be off by a few minutes but I assure you it works to all intents and purposes.

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

Draft email. This is an in-sign conjuction withVenus ruling Taurus in 10th but out of combustion by 33?. I think this finally prompted me to write the email about my ?hopes and wishes? concerning a job but Saturn, in sextile to Venus and on the Asc, ensured I did it as a draft.

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

Email sent. An hour or so later I got the feeling I should send the email right now, so I made a change and sent it. Venus is now 1? from the MC and Saturn is in its detriment in the 12th but still making a sextile to Venus. Mars is the strongest planet in the chart and is going to conjunct Uranus then sextile Sun, Venus and MC and trine Saturn while T-squaring Pluto and POF. I think I?ll get a positive answer to my email after a delay. Any naysayers?

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

The last one is my Venus return for 2005 starting on 30 May. In-sign combustion with Mercury ruling Gemini in the 5th. Any predictions?

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

Well, that?s the best I can come up with, over to you.

I think Deb has a point about the limited use of looking at natal charts to understand combustion. I have three traditional planets combust the Sun in the 12th house but I think they work quite well myself, partly because they all trine the Moon in the 9th.
I have been thinking about this and can understand the need to take the whole horary chart into consideration. I guess it is a matter of having the experience to discern when it is combust and when it isn't, or rather when the combustion is debilitating and when it isn't. Having thought about it, it isn't a case of deciding whether it is combust or not. If it is within 8 deg 30' then it is combust. But there may be other factors in the chart that mitigate that combustion.

Okay, I take back everything I said in my last post.

Sorry folks, the images seem to expire in 24 hours no matter if the link is to a guest user or user account, at this point some are available and some not

However, I agree that combustion probably isn't relevant in natal, which is why I thought the lunar and event charts might be pertinent.

So what we really need is a couple of horaries - one with an in-sign combustion and one with an out of sign combustion with the 2nd planet in rulership/exhaltation - where you know the outcome in each case.

Also in a combustion question Granny posted, Yuzuru posted an answer quoting CA p. 467 about a horse, where the significators were combust and Lilley gives credence to the fact that the Sun had no dignities where he was:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=779

Amelia's riddle question also has Venus in a 4 deg combustion in the 7th and Deb posted the chart at:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=877

Kirk:
Sorry this seems a bit biased towards the horary discussion. The truth is I don?t know enough about the effect of combustion in nativities myself. When I have seen it in birth charts I?ve usually recognised it and drawn a reliable interpretation from it, but others have claimed to have explored this and found no reliable effect.

Part of the problem is that within the context of a whole lifetime it is so difficult to isolate an effect to the level we can with a horary. Also, those that do research could be trying to apply it in the wrong way. David McCann, for example, did some research into the effect of Mercury combust in nativities and decided that because many of the people who have this became widely respected for their imagination or intellect, it?s not a consistent rule. Yet combustion can mean a lot of things and it?s not necessarily just a weakening principle, and therefore suggestive of malfunction. In horary the specific nature of the chart will often clarify the meaning of the combustion, in that it might relate to a term of imprisonment, or to something kept in the dark. We can draw a very specific interpretation from it and measure its validity by the accuracy of our judgements.

All I can say is that I know a number of people with a planet combust in their birth chart who relate that to an effect which tallies with the traditional notion of combustion. Without breaking any confidentiality I can also tell you that I recall a discussion about this with Olivia Barclay, who strongly believed that it applied just as much in birth charts as horaries, and she told me about a friend of hers who had the ascendant ruler combust and with Mars ? the friend died in a fire when this was activated by transit. The way we generally do birth chart readings today doesn?t foster this kind of research does it? And maybe that?s not a bad thing.

BTW, in his 'Dictionary of Terms', published in the Traditional Astrologer Magazine, issue 7, David McCann wrote :

Combustion occurs when a planet is in conjunction with the Sun, but not cazimi: it was considered a serious debility. This seems true for significators in horary, but in nativities it depends on the planet and its placing. A combust Moon is always unfavourable however.

Sungem:
Personally I don?t favour the view that a planet in dignity necessarily escapes the effect of combustion. But what is relevant to the point I was making earlier, about needing to recognise it within the theme of the chart, is that an unfortunate planet combust is doubly cursed. One that is combust but otherwise dignified, (essentially or accidentally), might still turn out to be a ?fortified? planet, all things considered. In that case the combustion is going to be less of an impediment, or less severe in its expression.

Remember that when we evaluate the score of a planet?s dignity or debility numerically, it loses 5 points by being combust; but it can claim those 5 points back when it is in its own sign. So if there are no more debilitating factors, and a few more dignifying factors, that planet isn?t considered debilitated, and its influence would still be deemed a positive one.

In the two shipping chart examples I referred to from Lilly, Mercury comes out with a small debility of -2 in both instances. But the first chart has Mercury receiving the Moon in an otherwise positive chart. (Galileo?s chart notes show that he added points into the dignity score for planets that received the trine of the Moon; so, all-in-all, Mercury is not a severely debilitated planet despite the combustion). The second chart has a slightly debilitated Mercury in an overwhelmingly negative chart, with the Moon applying by opposition. It?s not really hard to see why Lilly laboured on the afflictions in the second chart but passed over them in the first.

Although we can accept that the whole chart has to be taken into consideration, we still need to have a clear definition of what is the correct technical definition of combustion for many techniques ? one of which is to know when it qualifies for the 5 points of debility that we use to determine a planet?s ?overall strength!

For this, I personally stick to Lilly?s formal definition ? that it needs to be within 8.30 degrees of the Sun and within the same sign. As many of our recent discussions have shown, ritual is important, most especially in horary and the more ?judicial? branches of astrology ? so although I go along with Sue?s inclination towards the importance of ?visibility? in the underlying philosophy of combustion and allow some recognition of this in chart interpretation, I still can?t leave Lilly?s ?in-sign? requirement unaccounted for, if only for ritualistic purposes.

Sue:
Feel I owe you a comment too, but I've run out of things to say, so I'll just say hi

Hello Deb

Remember that when we evaluate the score of a planet?s dignity or debility numerically, it loses 5 points by being combust; but it can claim those 5 points back when it is in its own sign. So if there are no more debilitating factors, and a few more dignifying factors, that planet isn?t considered debilitated, and its influence would still be deemed a positive one.

I think this is a very good analysis of a tricky situation and I do understand the mitigating circumstances in the two Lilley shipping examples.

Although we can accept that the whole chart has to be taken into consideration, we still need to have a clear definition of what is the correct technical definition of combustion for many techniques ? one of which is to know when it qualifies for the 5 points of debility that we use to determine a planet?s ?overall strength!

For this, I personally stick to Lilly?s formal definition ? that it needs to be within 8.30 degrees of the Sun and within the same sign.

I'm happy to bow to your greater experience and knowledge and appreciate your last post especially because it really does give me a clearer understanding of how to apply the combustion rules. Thanks to you and everyone else for helping to clarify it for me so that I can have some confidence in applying it.

I am a bit reluctant to post this lest I be accused of 'flogging a dead horse' so to speak but I found this quite interesting.

I was reading an article last night which is the second part of an article I mentioned in the thread on the fiery way by Goldstein and Pingree. They are translations of almanacs found in Cairo and dated from the 12th century. But what I came across that I found interesting is that, in one listing, they mention the Moon being in combustion when it is clearly in a different sign from the Sun. The dates are a bit confusing but from what I can work out this particular section is dated between 1 Aug and 26th Aug 1145 in our calendar. It appears from some of the entries that the person writing the almanacs (they were first written in Arabic) saw combustion as independent of sign boundaries. I have reproduced a couple of entries below that all relate to the Moon. The dates are from the Arabic calendar but I have given what I think are the correct Gregorian dates in brackets.

26 Friday (17th Aug) in Cancer (the Moon). it is in quartile with Jupiter, the first; and it enters Leo. Inauspicious. The Sun enters Virgo.

27 Saturday (18th Aug) in Leo; it is in quartile with Saturn, the 2nd, and in sextile with Jupiter (Pingree corrects this to Venus).

28 Sunday (19th Aug)[The Moon] in Leo, under the rays of the Sun; it is in trine with Jupiter, the 10th [and it ent]ers Virgo; and it is burned at night; suitable for what is desired secretly.

29 Monday (20th); in Virgo under the rays..........

So here we have the Sun in Virgo and the Moon still in Leo being considered combust. So it seems that, at least for this author, combustion crosses sign boundaries.

So here we have the Sun in Virgo and the Moon still in Leo being considered combust. So it seems that, at least for this author, combustion crosses sign boundaries.

It certainly does, and he's wrong.

Tom

Oh, you'd like to think so, wouldn't you, Tom? But, here in a 12th century almanac, it clearly shows that combustion could cross sign boundaries. Not one text prior to Mr Lilly in the 17th century suggests otherwise. This is not evidence that everyone saw it that way but rather evidence that crossing sign boundaries was done. I haven't seen any evidence yet that combustion was to remain within sign boundaries until five centuries later. Not one text that I have seen prior to Mr Lilly in the 17th century suggests that combustion must remain within the sign boundaries. Whether or not you agree that for combustion to take place the planet must be in the same sign as the Sun, it seems that this was not necessarily a traditional interpretation prior to Lilly.

Sue

PS: to you too.

Whether or not you agree that for combustion to take place the planet must be in the same sign as the Sun, it seems that this was not necessarily a traditional interpretation prior to Lilly.

And your point is?

Whether it was commonly believed prior to Lilly or not kind of begs the question. Lilly's position makes more sense, unless we prefer to engage in strictly visual astrology, in which cse we must ignore things like secondary progressions and use primaries instead. I have a hard time with insisting on understanding astrological symbolism by referring to visual phenomenon in some cases, but ignoring it in others. Lilly, it seems to me is consistent by saying combustion occurs only within the same sign and that aspects only occur within signs. It is a philosophical position based on a particular understanding of the effects of planets in signs that is not entirely dependent on a visual basis. Combustion may well be, and probably is based on an earlier visual understanding, but it is not required that everything remain within that paradigm.

The man was ahead of his time.

Tom

And your point is?

You want me to have a point? My only point really is that there is evidence to suggest that combustion has not always been considered to relate to within sign only. If I recall our earlier discussion, there was some debate on whether we could accept that the ancient authors simply did not mention that combustion had to be in the same sign because it was to be assumed. The particular almanac I mentioned makes it clear that this cannot be assumed.

Lilly, it seems to me is consistent by saying combustion occurs only within the same sign and that aspects only occur within signs.

It may well have been that Lilly insisted that combustion remain in sign to be consistent with the concept of aspects always being in sign. However, even Lilly was inconsistent with this concept when he allowed for out of sign aspects when considering VOC Moon. If he was truly consistent then he would consider the Moon VOC until it changes sign regardless of whether it is in orb of making an aspect to another planet. If the Moon is at say 27? Gemini and Jupiter is at 2? Scorpio we would not consider this an aspect even if it is within orb because it is out of sign. Yet, Lilly would not consider this to be VOC because it is within orb of aspecting Jupiter even though it has to change signs to do so. This, to me, is contradictory. Lilly is allowing for out of sign aspects in this case. If he was being consistent, he would consider the Moon to be VOC because it will not become an aspect until the Moon moves into Cancer.

I have a hard time with insisting on understanding astrological symbolism by referring to visual phenomenon in some cases, but ignoring it in others.

Why? Aspects are geometrical constructs. There is a very logical reason why aspects need to remain within sign in the same way that it is logical to stick to traditional rulerships. There is a logical structure in both that makes sense and falls apart if we start allowing for out of sign aspects or modern rulerships. These structures are interdependent in some ways. But I cannot see any logical structure that suggests combustion is valid only when it is in the same sign. Aspects are seen on paper and not in the sky. I suppose you could argue that the way we practise astrology today is all on paper. Combustion, however, is not a geometrical construct and is independent of any structure. It is more of a physical reality. The idea of combustion relates to a planet in its heliacal setting and rising phase. The planet's weakness is derived from its proximity to the Sun and its invisibility regardless of what sign it is in. To me, it makes no sense to consider a planet that is one degree from the Sun, but in another sign, not combust but a planet within eight degrees is considered combust just because it is in the same sign. As far as I am concerned, Mercury at 29? Sagittarius is not conjunct the Sun at 1? Capricorn but it is combust. Combustion is not the same as an aspect and does not need to go by the same rules.

The man was ahead of his time.

Surely you're not suggesting that Lilly was a 'modern', Tom.