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
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.
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.
