16
Nevertheless, I am still wondering how to reconcile this with combustion?
Take Morin's position: Combustion is a hoax. In the newly released translation of Volume 16 of Astrolgia Gallica, Morin goes through his usual explanation of why a concept (in this case combustion) is promulgated and then explains why it is false. For example he argues that everyone recognizes the power of the new Moon yet the new Moon is combust except when it is cazimi and since cazimi is "in the heart of the Sun" a planet should be weakest not strongest.

From there he notes that if the lord of the ASC is powerless because it is combust, then there must not be a lord ASC in that chart. Also if any planet is combust, and therefore powerless, it cannot act as dispositor. Since none of these things make sense, then, to Morin, combustion makes no sense.

Notice he is accepting the definition of combustion as resulting in a planet being powerless, and that definition is consistent with the visual idea of the Sun obliterating a planet and canceling its light. If we are not ready to abandon the idea of combustion, perhaps the definition needs to be re-thought.

Tom

18
Take Morin's position: Combustion is a hoax.
I've learned from hard experience that having L1 Combust in a horary question is a serious red flag. This is one Consideration that's not to be taken lightly. So I can't agree with Morin on this one.

Tara

19
Hi Tara,
I've learned from hard experience that having L1 Combust in a horary question is a serious red flag. This is one Consideration that's not to be taken lightly. So I can't agree with Morin on this one.
But Morin would have pointed out that horary is a hoax ;-) He included it among his list of "Arab fictions."

Centuries of experience would indicate that combustion has an effect. However, as Morin points out, the definition of combustion as rendering the planet "powerless" is illogical and contrary to practice. If Lord ASC is powerless, then there is no Lord ASC. If Jupiter is in Taurus combust then any planets in Sagittarius or Pisces have no dispositor and any house cusps with those signs have no ruler. This is, of course, senseless.

A more rational position is probably somewhere between these two extremes. Like you said, it's a "red flag."

Tom

20
As combustion is not the theme of the thread, I will try to keep it quick.

"However, as Morin points out, the definition of combustion as rendering the planet "powerless" is illogical and contrary to practice. If Lord ASC is powerless, then there is no Lord ASC. If Jupiter is in Taurus combust then any planets in Sagittarius or Pisces have no dispositor and any house cusps with those signs have no ruler. This is, of course, senseless."

In my own practice, what I do is:

in horary, power is everything, so if quesited or querent is ruled by an combusted planet, then we have a problem ! UNLESS combustion makes sense in any other way (example of buying a horse by Lilly).

in natal, a combusted planet usually means that we should look at other planet for rulership. For example, if Jupiter is combusted, we could use venus as ruler of pisces, or maybe even a planet in pisces which have dignity, for example mars in his triplicy and terms.
Meu blog de astrologia (em portugues) http://yuzuru.wordpress.com
My blog of astrology (in english) http://episthemologie.wordpress.com

21
Hi Tom,
But Morin would have pointed out that horary is a hoax.

Oh I would love to hear more about Morin's reasoning for the assertion that horary is a hoax. :shock:

Seriously.

Tara

22
Hi Tara,

That would be off topic, but very briefly, Morin was a natural philosopher. He believed that astrology was part of nature and that astrology worked through natural means. In other words the planets actually did something. This is not possible with horary astrology. The planets don't cause the result of the question. You are free to dispute his outlook if you wish and many would, but that is his reasoning.

Similarly, he had no use for profections, or the so-called "Arabic Parts," except Fortuna. They do not exist in nature. Neither do the terms and faces, so he disregarded them.

From Book 21 of Astrologia Gallica:

Ancient astrologers often based their judgments either on purely fictitious assumptions, contrary to nature of things, or on certain elements which correspond to the natural order, but which were poorly understood, and even more poorly applied. In the first group one would have to include what were called "terms" decans," and "faces" and also the attribution of special properties to various degrees of the Ecliptic. In addition to these are the annual, monthly, and daily progressions (i.e. what we would call profections - tc), as well as the other fictions introduced into Astrology by the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Arabs."
There is a direct disparagement of horary, but I don't have time to look for it at the moment.

Before anyone swoons keep two things in mind: 1) Morin did not have access to as much history of astrology as we do, therefore he things he says about the "Arabs" might be and often are historically inaccurate. 2) His astrology is as good as anyone's. Morin thinks about everything and takes nothing for granted. Whereas Project Hindsight began to question Ptolemy in the 1980s, Morin did it in the 1600s. We've been told over and over again of the importance of Cardan and we accept it despite almost nothing of his writings exists in English. Ditto Bonatti. This is not to argue that our high opinion of those and others is unsupportable, but rather that it is unexamined (Although thanks to Ben Dykes we can now examine Bonatti). We may not always agree with Morin's conclusions, but he always makes us think.

Tom

23
Thanks, Tom. I appreciate your taking the time to explain Morin's position. I take it he did subscribe to the essential dignities of the planets as far as rulership/detriment and exaltation/fall positions go? Robert Corre once said in a workshop that, according to Morin, planets in their fall were "as if benumbed." As a Libra Sun I was stunned/benumbed!

Tara

25
Ficina wrote:Interesting article, Andrew, though I'm not sure that I agree with Crane's argument for starting at the winter solstice, as per Ptolemy, rather than the spring equinox.
Bezza follows Crane, or viceversa :)

In fact:
[edited by DH - see diagram on link below:]
http://www.cieloeterra.it/articoli.luna/luna3.gif
(from http://www.cieloeterra.it/articoli.luna/luna.html)

So New Moon to the First Quarter is increasing in moisture, I Quarter to Full Moon is increasing in warmth, and so on.

Moon works like outer planets as described in Tetrabiblos:
"The planets, when matutine, and from their first emerging until they arrive at their first station, are chiefly productive of moisture; from their first station until they rise at night, of heat; from their rising at night until their second station, of dryness; and from their second station until their occultation, they produce cold." I, 8

26
This is the only thread that I managed to catch whilst I was at the Blast conference, and it was interesting to read about the views of Crane, Greenbaum and Hand (about Lilly and Ptolemy), whilst I was at the Blast with Crane, Greenbaum and Hand (talking about Lilly and Ptolemy) :)

Despite my general passion for Lilly?s work, I also agree that Ptolemy?s explanation of the Moon?s humours is more persuasive and internally consistent. Sasha gives a great explanation at the top of this page. Gjiada demonstrates with a beautiful diagram and a highly pertinent quote. Also remember that Ptolemy wrote that *most* of the Moon?s power is humidifying, so even when it is in the driest period of its cycle, this will only be relative to its own norm. It also heats moderately because it receives its light from the Sun. The planetary cycles into and out of the Sun are intrinsically linked to the symbolism of planetary growth and decay ? so just as the Moon?s light is maximum between its 1st and last quarter phases, so is its ability to reflect and express the warmth given to it by the Sun. It helps to keep in mind that the Moon is a transmitter of light and virtue.

27
Hello Deb,

Sounds like you had a great time at the Blast conference. :D

Judging from her book Dorian Greenbaum seems to think Lilly's position is more logical from a practical astrological perpective. Has she changed her mind on that? If not I do find it quite amusing that she favours Lilly's approach here while you go for the hellenistic source. A nice demonstration of open minds.

Ps great diagram Gjiada!