Skyscript Astrology Forum

I?ve been thinking about the issue of combustion for a while now. Lilly says that for a planet to be combust, it not only has to be within 8? 30' of the Sun, but also within the same sign. This doesn?t make a lot of sense to me. The whole idea of combustion is that the planet has no power to act because it is being overwhelmed by the Sun. It is invisible. This is actually an astronomical occurrence. When a planet is that close to the Sun we cannot see it. This happens whether the two are in the same sign or not. Lilly doesn?t seem to explain why he only considers them combust when in the same sign. But by his definition, if Mercury is at 29? Aries and the Sun is at 1? Taurus, the planet is not combust. But if Mercury is at 21? Aries and the Sun is at 29? Aries then the planet is combust even though in the first situation the Sun and Mercury are much closer. I can see the point that sign boundaries are significant but then why is CA full of chart examples where sign boundaries are ignored? He sometimes uses aspects that are out of sign and even has charts where the Moon is not considered voc if it makes an applying aspect to a planet in the next sign. So why the adherence to sign boundaries in the case of combustion?

I went through some of the texts I have in my library to see if there was a precedent for Lilly?s definition of combustion but was unable to find one. Gadbury, who was a contemporary, follows Lilly. But other than that, all I could find in reference to combustion never mentions sign boundaries. I found references to combustion in Dorotheus(1st century), Firmicus (4th century), Abu ?Ali Al-Khayyat (c. 800), Abu Mashar (c. 820), Ibn Ezra (1148), Bonatti (c. 1282), Dariot (1583), Culpeper(1655), Saunders (1677) and Partridge (1679) and I could find no reference to sign boundaries. I?m not saying there aren?t any, just that I couldn?t find them. I am only going by what I currently have at hand. As much as I would like to own a copy of every traditional astrology book ever written, it?s just not the case. I think Tom does though.

Many of the early modern astrologers mention sign boundaries (e.g. Ivy Jacobson) but they could be following Lilly. I know Lee Lehman has put forward an argument for dismissing sign boundaries and I tend to agree with her. I am not saying that sign boundaries don?t count. It may well be that combustion within sign is different from combustion out of sign, but I am not convinced that out of sign means no combustion.

Hi,

Tom is right that the older authorities rarely raise this question. (I think this issue was discussed somewhere in another post, too.) But my impression is that they would have allowed out-of-sign combustion (I do too). If you look at the sources, you find two things:

1. Conjunction is not technically an aspect, so that the issue of aspects and whole-sign aspects is not directly applicable.

2. The authorities never (so far as I have seen) discuss combustion when they discuss the zodiac (which is where they discuss aspects and conjunctions). They always combustion in special sections covering relationships to the sun (like orientality/occidentality).

Paulus Alexandrinus is the clearest. He specifically relates combustion to orientality/occidentality, saying that combustion takes place regardless of sign (p.21, ARHAT edition).

By the time you get to Alchabitius, Abu Ma'shar, and Al-Biruni you find combustion treated as a matter of being visibly hidden by the sun's rays -- not in terms of aspects -- and in special sections on the sun. Al-Biruni treats all planets as combust up to 6 degrees from the Sun, and then assigns what seems to be an average number of degrees each planet will be under the sunbeams before it appears as an evening or morning star.

This says to me that combustion is not a matter of signs and aspects, so that out-of-sign combustion is valid.

Best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Hate to disagree, but ...

Conjunction is not technically an aspect, so that the issue of aspects and whole-sign aspects is not directly applicable.

This, I believe, is hair splitting. The difference between an aspect and a conjunction is largely semantic. Yes, the reasons for their influence is different, but there is also a reason why astrologers don?t mention the difference any longer. The reason for using out-of-sign combustion is proximity. The reason some use out-of sign aspects is based on the importance they place on proximity. If neither the rules that apply to aspects nor conjunctions apply to combustion, we're saying combustion is a unique concept that has rules that, although similar, do not apply to other concepts. It satnds alone.

On the other hand, the one authority that unambiguously approves of out-of sign aspects, Ibn Ezra, does not approve of out of sign conjunctions.

?Conjunction is when there are two planets in one sign and each one is in the [orb of] influence of the body of the other [planet], then they are said to be joined.? (page 117 The Beginning of Wisdom translated by Meira Epstein, ARHAT)

So, if we apply the rules for conjunction to combustion, then out-of-sign combustion is prohibited. If we don?t, then we can have a planet that is combust, but not conjunct. The Sun's proximity has effect on one concept, but not the other. The sign prevents conjunction, but not combustion. Observation is important for one concept, but irrelevant for the other. I have a tough time integrating these inconsistencies.

Ben writes:

The authorities never (so far as I have seen) discuss combustion when they discuss the zodiac (which is where they discuss aspects and conjunctions). They always combustion in special sections covering relationships to the sun (like orientality/occidentality).

Paulus Alexandrinus is the clearest. He specifically relates combustion to orientality/occidentality, saying that combustion takes place regardless of sign (p.21, ARHAT edition).

I?m not reading Paulus the same way you are. The heading of page 21 is:

14: Concerning the Phases which the Five Stars Make to the Sun.

The discussion is on morning and evening stars. I will gamble a bit, and say your position rests on this quote:

?The Stars occur as morning risers whenever they may separate from the Sun by 15 degrees in leading [i.e. leading in zodiacal order] degrees and/or leading zoidia [italics in the translation] until they may be found making the move into the [the Sun?s] right triangle.?

But this concerns qualification as a morning star (and later the text describes qualification as evening stars). I would use the following quote from page 21 to bolster my position, if I were to use this part of the text at all:

?And they become conjunct whenever they happen to be in the same degree as the Sun in the same zoidia, not being away from it more than 59 minutes. And when more than that, the stars become weak and unprofitable in their specific outcomes, whenever any of them may be within 9 degrees distance of the Sun whether they happen to be in morning or evening setting.?

Ibn Ezra says the same thing about conjunctions, so if we separate the rules for aspects and the rules for conjunctions and we apply the rules for conjunctions, then it seems to me that out of sign combustion isn?t acceptable.


I see your point, Ben, but I think Paulus? text is anything but clear. To me it is saying that to qualify as morning or evening star, the planet may be in a different sign, but to be conjunct, it must be within the same sign. If I were to assign a definition of combustion based on this, I would put it in the same sign only since conjunction relates to combustion, but rising and setting stars do not necessarily relate to combustion.

Ben writes:

By the time you get to Alchabitius, Abu Ma'shar, and Al-Biruni you find combustion treated as a matter of being visibly hidden by the sun's rays -- not in terms of aspects -- and in special sections on the sun. Al-Biruni treats all planets as combust up to 6 degrees from the Sun, and then assigns what seems to be an average number of degrees each planet will be under the sunbeams before it appears as an evening or morning star.

But by the time we get to Lilly combustion occurs within sign only. I think it is possible to find authority on the different sides of this issue. And Aristotle tells us that appeals to authority are the worst kind of evidence (as I appeal to the authority of Aristotle to make this point )Out of sign combustion simply doesn?t make sense to me. If the effects of combustion are different because the Sun and planet are in different signs, then it isn?t combustion. If the effects are lessened I can?t see how, if distance determines impact. If a planet is seriously combust within two degrees of the Sun, why is it less so if a sign separates those two degrees? We can?t have it both ways, i.e. if combustion is the result of distance then the signs don?t matter, but if the effects are different, when the Sun and planet are in different signs, then the signs do matter.

It seems to me we have to juggle the rules and work hard to keep all the balls in the air in order to justify out-of-sign combustion. Or, failing that, we have to apply principles for combustion that we apply nowhere else.

Ben writes:

This says to me that combustion is not a matter of signs and aspects, so that out-of-sign combustion is valid.

What, then, do you say of cazimi? From an observational standpoint, the planet is just as invisible as it is when it is combust. Why should it be considered strengthened? If anything, it should be considered dangerously debilitated, but no authority, to my knowledge considers being in the heart of the Sun anything but a great strength.


Thanks for writing,

Tom

Hi Tom,

Let me step back a second and explain how I'm approaching the question. I think we could agree that the discussions of topics like orientality, being matutine/vespertine, combust, and so on, are somewhat vexed when we compare different authors or even look at different comments within the same author -- Ptolemy is a good example of the latter. There are some issues like out-of-sign combustion that we wish they would have addressed simply and clearly, but lacking such resources we have to find another way.

Likewise with the cazimi issue: authors generally agree it is good for a planet to be cazimi. But then Abu Ma'shar comes out and says a planet in cazimi is like "like a man who purifies himself and so <i>lacks strength</i>, but will regain health afterwards" (Astrol. Metaph., II.178). This <i>seems</i> to contradict his view in the <i>Abbreviation</i>. So is a planet in cazimi strong, or not?

So my approach to the out-of-sign combustion question is to ask: when do the old authorities talk about combustion, why do they talk about it like they do, what issues do they raise and what do they omit?

What I think I find is that authorities do not discuss combustion in connection with their chapters on aspects. They tend to deal with aspects in a very general way, and only in terms of the zodiac, in one chapter; then later they talk about aspects between planets. But they always seem to treat combustion in a special section, in connection with the various ways planets can be related to the sun, and especially how planets become visible/invisible in relation to the sun. Even when they speak of how many degrees away from the sun a planet needs to be to emerge from combustion, they are connecting it with when a planet will be visible at morning or evening.

So Paulus Alexandrinus does connect being matutine/vespertine with combustion on account of a planet's visibility; and if you look at the scholia to this section on p. 28, the ancient commentators make just this point. Likewise Olympiodorus on p. 85.

Al-Biruni makes some illuminating comments along these lines, which directly addresses a concern you raised. Al-Biruni says that Venus can sometimes be conjunct the Sun and yet <i>not combust</i>, because <i>she is still visible</i> on account of her occasional extreme latitude (Book of Instruction, section 483). Here we have a case where a planet is definitely conjunct, but <i>not</i> combust, and for reasons of visibility, not longitude or sign cusps.

So what these considerations say to me is that conjoining (and being in the same sign as) the sun, as a matter of aspect, is not the same as being combust, as a matter of being harmed by the sunbeams. One has to do strictly with longitude, the other has to do with visibility. We do not need to apply rules of conjunction to rules of combustion, because they are distinct. If so, then to me it seems fair to say that most authorities would allow out-of-sign combustion, and they were right to do so because the concepts are distinct.

How does that sound?

Best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

We are on different wavelengths on this topic

So what these considerations say to me is that conjoining (and being in the same sign as) the sun, as a matter of aspect, is not the same as being combust, as a matter of being harmed by the sunbeams. One has to do strictly with longitude, the other has to do with visibility. We do not need to apply rules of conjunction to rules of combustion, because they are distinct. If so, then to me it seems fair to say that most authorities would allow out-of-sign combustion, and they were right to do so because the concepts are distinct.

How does that sound?

Not persuasive. Sorry. What I believe you?re saying is that the rules for conjunction are different from the rules for combustion because they are not mentioned in the same place by the authors, and one has to do with longitude, the other with visibility (actually lack of bisibility). Furthermore, combustion is mentioned in the same sections as those areas where sign placement is not an overriding concern. The basis for your argument seems to be that the explanation of mautine/vespertine occurs in the same place as combustion. Therefore, since maututine/vespertine is not affected by a sign boundary, despite it not being mentioned specifically, combustion shouldn?t be affected by sign boundaries either. To me that?s a non-sequiter. The original idea behind combustion is lack of visibility due to the Sun?s light. The mautine/vespertine concepts have to do with proximity, not necessarily obscurity. The concept of matutine/vespertine is distinct from combustion just as combustion is distinct from conjunction. If such distinction prevents combustion from following the rules of conjunction, then such distinction should prevent combustion from following the rules for matutine/vespertine

The origin of this discussion made the point that regardless of sign boundary, a planet combust is obscured by the Sun. This is irrefutable. Therefore, the reasoning went, the sign boundary is irrelevant. This is logical if we apply the same principles to other concepts, e.g. conjunctions, cazimi, planets in great dignity. That a planet can be combust without being conjunct is a bit more than I can accept. Even if we eliminate conjunction from this list, we still have to deal with cazimi and dignified planets. In order to be completely logical, we have to reverse the majority of opinion on cazimi, eliminate the possibility that planets in dignity are not combust, and have separate delineations for planets close to the Sun (a. combust, b. conjunct [this last may not be impossible to do though]).

My point is that we don?t do that consistently. To me ignoring the sign boundaries in cases of combustion is an example of picking and choosing where and when we will apply certain rules with no respect to the foundations of those rules. This, frankly, is the sort of thing that drove many of us from modern astrology to traditional. It may be true that the concept of combustion emerged from visual observation in Babylon or some other pre-Hellenistic locale, but this, in my opinion does not grant it primacy in select instances.

On the other hand, one can make a philosophical case for conjunctions, combustion, and cazimi having separate delineations. We can make a philosophical case for planets in great dignity acting more like a mutual reception than an otherwise combust planet. We can?t do that if we base our delineations strictly on astronomical observation. If we grant primacy to observation in this case, why not all cases? If lack of visibility is our benchmark, do we ignore planets below the horizon? Also it is true that the Sun obscures all planets above the horizon in day charts. Shouldn?t we claim them all to be powerless since sign boundaries do not apply? Obviously this is absurd. I believe the importance of what we see (or can?t see) is secondary to the importance of the underlying philosophy. And if it is philosophically inconsistent to ignore sign boundaries in the case of combustion, then we shouldn?t do it.

If this doesn?t explain my position any better then I?ll blame it on Mercury Rx.

Best Wishes,

Tom

I tried to send this a couple of hours ago but had trouble. So I hadn't read Tom's latest post when I wrote most of this.

Hi guys,

Thanks to both of you for the interesting discussion. And thanks for the further references.

Tom said:

While it is true most traditional authorities do not mention combustion as having the Sun and the other planet in the same sign, it is not unreasonable to infer that they took it for granted.

Well, that would never stand up in a court of law. How is it reasonable to infer that they took it for granted when most of them spelled everything else out in fine detail but didn?t say a word about sign boundaries in relation to combustion? Traditional astrologers are always accusing modern astrologers of not following the evidence that was given to us by the traditional writers. Robert Schmidt says that astrologers, misinterpreting or adding their own bits, tainted astrology in the Middle Ages. Lilly was the first author I could find to specifically refer to combustion as being in sign only. He doesn't actually say why this applies. We have most authors explaining why combustion weakens a planet but nowhere is it explained why it needs to be in the same sign. If sign boundaries are that important in combustion then why is it never mentioned by the older authors? I really can't buy the 'it was infered' argument. If it were that important then surely at least one of the traditional astrologers would have left nothing to chance and mentioned it. To say that something is implied without it being said opens us up to the potential of putting things there that were never meant to be there just because we're sure that even though they didn't say it, it's what they meant.


Tom said:

With the exception of Ibn Ezra, none of the ancient or medieval astrologers we defer to used out of sign aspects.

Yes, but Lilly was known to have done it on occasions. In fact, Lilly wasn't afraid to change the rules to suit his own purposes. His definition of VOC Moon, for example, was different from that of many others. He also gave specific details when it came to 'Considerations' and then went ahead and ignored them in some of his charts. This could be just another case of Lilly interpreting what he believes should be the case.

I don't agree that combustion and conjunction are necessarily the same thing. I agree with Ben that they are clearly two different topics. As Ben said, the two concepts are distinct and therefore do not need to have the same rules applied. Maybe rules of combustion aren't applied anywhere else because they're not appropriate anywhere else. We don't apply the 5 degree rule to anything other than house cusps. We don't say that Mars at 27 degrees Aries should be read as being in Taurus because it is almost there. I realise this might sound like a silly example but the point is we have different rules for different things. We cannot apply certain rules across the board.

In all of the texts I have read, combustion is clearly mentioned in relation to visibility. Dariot, for example, says 'When any planet is hidden under the beams of the Sun, so that we cannot see it, then it is said to be combust or burnt....' (A Brief and Most Easy Introduction to the Astrological Judgement of the Stars, Chapter 9). Another example is to be found in Bonatti. 'After Saturn, Jupiter and Mars appear from under the rays of the sun and are completely beyond combustion such that they may be seen....(Liber Astronomaie, Robert Zoller trans. p148). There are plenty of similar references.

However, astronomical visibility does not preclude a philosophical interpretation. In fact, part of the interpretation of combustion clearly involves a philosophical approach. When authors talk about the planet being 'burned up by the Sun' they obviously do not mean this in an astronomically real sense. It is descriptive of the planet losing its power. It's a bit like the myth of Icarus who flew too close to the Sun and his wings (his power to fly) were destroyed.

Ben said:

Al-Biruni says that Venus can sometimes be conjunct the Sun and yet not combust, because she is still visible on account of her occasional extreme latitude

Very interesting indeed. I hadn't come across that one. That very clearly states that conjunction and combustion are two different things and are therefore required to be treated differently.

I really have to think about this some more. I must say, however, that I am more convinced that combustion isn't specifically confined to being within the same sign only.

Tom said:

If this doesn?t explain my position any better then I?ll blame it on Mercury Rx.

Well, you could try but since Mercury is now direct I would have a hard time accepting that argument.

Tom, I'll get back to you on your last post when I have read it properly and thought about it. One of the really good things about disagreeing with you is that it always challenges me to dig deeper. This is a very good thing.

cheers
Sue

Hi Tom,

This is an interesting conversation on an important topic, and I?m glad we're having it. It's partly philosophical and partly a textual mystery. I should make it clear I?m not making a strictly deductive argument about combustion, it?s more an argument from the best explanation. I think the question of whole-sign aspects and combustion are different enough that we have to see if special considerations come into play.

I think we could agree that since all of these phenomena are taking place with respect to the sky, longitudes are going to come into play one way or another. For instance, Jupiter could be exalted and yet be combust ? being exalted and being combust are not the same, but that doesn?t mean they have nothing to do with one another at all. For me the issue here is: in the absence of a clear statement by traditional authorities, how could the different elements of being out-of-sign and being combust compare with one another to help us with the answer?

My point is that the old texts always treat relationships to the sun as special considerations because of what the sun?s rays are taken to do. But aspects (conjunction) and combustion are not absolutely distinct, and do not necessarily require (as you suggest) completely different delineations for being conjunct the sun and being combust. Concepts can be different without being absolutely unrelated.

The cycle of a planets? appearing oriental, combust, cazimi, combust, occidental and so on are special things that happen because of the sun. From what traditional authorities both say and don?t say, I think it?s reasonable to assume that out-of-sign combustion is one of those special times when ? if you do not normally allow out-of-sign aspects at all ? out-of-sign combustion still harms a planet. The harm remains because of the sun?s rays. If so, then it is consistent to treat combust planets as harmed even if out-of-sign, because the sun?s rays burn within a certain orb regardless of sign. So the exalted Jupiter is exalted because of the sign he is in; but he is also harmed by combustion even if in another sign. Similarly he would be helped if (as a masculine, diurnal planet) he were also above the earth by day. It would require fine-tuning to delineate him, but it is not inconsistent to say that all of these factors are in play.

I think this is a way of making a consistent set of considerations. We don?t have to rely only on one standard (sign cusps) to accommodate them.

Best,
Ben

Hi All,

This would probably be a great time for someone with an example of a horary or natal chart with out-of-sign combustion to step forward! I have a few, but the planet in question is retrograde, thus skewing the results because of the debility of retrogradation.

Anyone out there to help us resolve this with an actual chart?

Ben

I couldn't find any examples in my horary files but plenty in my other files.

Here is a chart you might want to look at. I chose it based on the fact that we all know who he is and that he has both an in sign combustion and an out of sign combustion:

Jeffrey Archer
15th April 1940
11:45am BST
Mark, Somerset, ENG

Sue

Well, that would never stand up in a court of law.

Heh, heh, heh, this isn't a court of law. Courts have differing rules of evidence depending on the type of case. Criminal law is the most stringent, but lots of things get by in civil cases that wouldn't pass muster in a criminal case.

The problem we all have with the texts is that they are largely incomplete (not all of them of course). Rob Hand has suggested that some of them are closer to study guides rather than full blown texts, so inference isn't as far fetched as one might seem. Besides, whichever side we take on this and other issues that are not spelled out, we are using inference one way or another.

Yes, but Lilly was known to have done it on occasions. In fact, Lilly wasn't afraid to change the rules to suit his own purposes.

Yes, and this is one of the things I admire most about Lilly. But Lilly did it on a case by case basis. We're discussing a rule or general priinciple.

I don't agree that combustion and conjunction are necessarily the same thing. I agree with Ben that they are clearly two different topics. As Ben said, the two concepts are distinct and therefore do not need to have the same rules applied.

Not in delineation, but they are both dependent on the same thing: proximity to the Sun. To me common sense tells us that there is something out of synch with a priciple that allows combustion but denies conjunction in precisely the same position.

When any planet is hidden under the beams of the Sun, so that we cannot see it, then it is said to be combust or burnt....'

This is a philosophical principle. Obviously, as you say below, the planet in combustion is not literally "burnt," and just as obviously we can't see any planet in day time because of the Sun's light. "Under the beams" is a specific concept that pertains to distance from the Sun, not just visibility or lack of visibility. It has to do with distance only, but as a philosophical principle "under the beams" or combust can be omitted for a sign boundary on the same grounds that sign elements not distance determine aspects.

Tom said:


If this doesn?t explain my position any better then I?ll blame it on Mercury Rx.


Well, you could try but since Mercury is now direct I would have a hard time accepting that argument. :-)

Maybe in Austrailia Mercury went direct, but here in New Jersey he is still driving me nuts!

Best wishes,

Tom

The problem we all have with the texts is that they are largely incomplete (not all of them of course). Rob Hand has suggested that some of them are closer to study guides rather than full blown texts, so inference isn't as far fetched as one might seem. Besides, whichever side we take on this and other issues that are not spelled out, we are using inference one way or another.

In that case, we could just as easily say that they didn't specifically mention that it can be out of sign because it was so obvious to them that combustion was all to do with the relationship between the planets themselves regardless of sign. But I do agree that, either way, we might be reading something into it that isn't there.

Not in delineation, but they are both dependent on the same thing: proximity to the Sun. To me common sense tells us that there is something out of synch with a priciple that allows combustion but denies conjunction in precisely the same position.

Why? If they are two different things and follow two different principles, then why can't you have one without the other? Combustion only applies to a planet's proximity to the Sun whereas conjunction applies to all planets regardless. And you can have the Sun in conjunction with a planet at, say, 9 degrees but they are not combust (even though they are under the Sun's beams). So there you have two different rules. And Lilly didn't always stick to aspects being within sign. There are at least four charts I could find where Lilly used out of sign aspects. (These are charts on p153, 387, 401, and 471. This is something that Deb points out in the footnotes of her annotated CA) These aren't cases of conjunction but it is the same principle. Signs aren't always a boundary that prevents perfection of an aspect according to Lilly. Nowhere in the delineation of these charts does he emphasis that they are out of sign aspects and are an exception to the rule. If you only ever saw those charts, you would be excused for thinking that sign boundaries are never taken into account. I couldn't actually find where Lilly specifies that aspects need to be in the right signs. I am not arguing for the use of out of sign aspects. I understand the principles behind the relationship between the signs. I am just trying to get a clear picture of when it is okay and when it isn't according to Lilly. But I have to wonder if he knew.

I just happened to be flipping through Raphael's 'Key and Guide to Astrology' a little while ago and noticed his definition of combust.

Within the Sun's beams or within 8.5 degrees of that luminary. It is said to be an affliction, but I doubt it. The Sun conjunct Jupiter is certainly not an affliction.

But then he also says that a separating aspect carries more strength than an applying aspect.

Cheers
Sue