Hello Sasha,

Fascinating references. Keep it coming please!

It is a good thing for all (the planets) to flee from the Sun, but not Mars; For Mars is overcome when under the rays of the Sun. Mars is afraid when seeing the light of the Sun, And it no longer possesses its former maleficence.

Thats very interesting. Some people in the horary community suggest Mars is not affected by combustion due to its hot + dry nature. This goes considerably beyond that to suggest the malefic nature of the planet is taken away by combustion.

Margherita's Ficino reference is thought provoking too. Like most forum members I cannot read Greek. Can i just confirm what the quote from Manetho was referring to? Does he mention Saturn as well?

"Some people in the horary community suggest Mars is not affected by combustion due to its hot + dry nature"

Hi,
as far as I know this is a creation of modern astrology.

Usually, in traditional astrology, the only thing that you will find is the disagreement if a planet in its own sign is protected or not from combustion.

Acc to Schmidt, the helenistics considered that a planet in its sign is like in his own carriage, he is protected from the sun.

Acc to Abu Mashar, even in his sign, a planet will be damaged by the combustion.

as far as I know this is a creation of modern astrology.

I agree. Although it seems popular with a few John Frawley students I have spoken to. Actually, I seem to recall Tom supporting this view but I may be wrong.

Usually, in traditional astrology, the only thing that you will find is the disagreement if a planet in its own sign is protected or not from combustion.

Are you talking about whether combustion can occur across the sign boundary or not? Or are you discussing a planet in its own domicile in close proximity to the Sun?

I assume you mean the latter. I have always had concerns about the idea of the sign boundary offering protection from combustion. Especially, as I have become more interested in visual astrology. However, there was an extremely long thread on just that topic a few years ago so I will not upon up that issue again here.

Mark

Hi,

Mark:

Can i just confirm what the quote from Manetho was referring to? Does he mention Saturn as well?

Manetho (more exactly would be to call him the anonymous because as Robert Lopilato mentions, there is no strong argument that the author was in reality Manetho) refers to combustion, in that passage. In the text in that passage there is no explicit mention about Saturn.
In my opinion when he says that is good for all planets except Mars, this means that this is good also for Saturn. So, to be more explicit is better to be under the Sun signs only for Mars.

Although it seems popular with a few John Frawley students I have spo

ken to

I remember Frawley saying that the idea that mars survives combustion is a bogus, so I don?t think they read him with attention :-)

Are you talking about whether combustion can occur across the sign boundary or not? Or are you discussing a planet in its own domicile in close proximity to the Sun?

the latter

I have always had concerns about the idea of the sign boundary offering protection from combustion

I would say that, at least in horary, the boundary rule is very important. I got one important prediction right based just on this rule

I remember Frawley saying that the idea that mars survives combustion is a bogus, so I don?t think they read him with attention

Yes. I didn't state Frawley taught this. I guess some things get lost in transmission.

I would say that, at least in horary, the boundary rule is very important. I got one important prediction right based just on this rule

Well I know you are not the type to reach rash conclusions. Still its not something I have reached a final view on so I would rather not take anyone elses opinion on this from faith...even Lilly!

I guess the rot sets in when you start to use out-of-sign aspects
For me the reality of the planets take precedence over the symbolism of the signs. However, I accept that is just a view that needs more testing in this specific area.

Mark

Hello Sasha,

Sorry to waste your time.

I got confused between the Firmicus and Manetho quote. You obviously provided the text in English for us. Thanks

I will need to check my translation of Firmicus to see what he says but I am assuming its broadly similar. Thanks for all your helpful input here.

Your a diamond geezer as they say in London.

yuzuru wrote:"Some people in the horary community suggest Mars is not affected by combustion due to its hot + dry nature"

It should not be a so modern idea.
Albumasar's Introduction (still I have not the whole book)
"You should know that the Sun damages mostly Venus and Moon which are moist and the temperament of the Sun is not in agreement with them, being hot and dry."

Margherita

Gjiada wrote:

It should not be a so modern idea.
Albumasar's Introduction (still I have not the whole book)
"You should know that the Sun damages mostly Venus and Moon which are moist and the temperament of the Sun is not in agreement with them, being hot and dry."

Clearly there is nothing new under the Sun

It's already very late, so I should like, without reference ot your single questions above, like to quote Firmicus, Lilly and Frawley.

Firmicus Maternus, Mathesos . . . , Liber Secundus VIII, Matutine and Vespertine Positions, 2.:
". . . To sum up, however, it should be stated, that nearness to the Sun is harmful to all planets. Certain astrologers, however, claim that Mars is favourable when setting, when he is overwhelmed by the rays of the Sun, for if being superservient to the Sun he looses his natural malefic qualities."

Willian Lilly, C.A., page 113 f, Combustion:
". . . and that Combustion can only be by personall conjunction in one Signe, . . . "

John Frawley, The Horary Textbook, page 60:
"It is sometimes claimed that as Mars, like the Sun, is hot and dry, combustion does not affect it. It does. The idea with combustion is that it is not safe to come too close to the king (unless you are in his bossom); it is no less unsafe if you are a soldier (Mars) than Ann Boleyn (Venus)."

Johannes

For the sake of completeness in regard to Lilly:

"A planet within 12 degrees of the Sun is said to be under his beams, and then hath no fortitude, let it be in what sign it will." (CA., p.300)

For the sake of completeness ...

Let's really make it complete: Morin rejected the entire idea of combustion. I'm travelling, and don't have the text with me, but he thought it absurd that a planet could a) be "burnt" by the Sun and lose all power, while b) if it was in the very heart of the Sun it was fortified. Things don't get cooler in the center of the oven.

Secondly if the planet loses all power (a slight exaggeration of the opinions of others on Morin's part) then it cannot rule a house or disposit another planet. It's powerless. While none of the authorities quoted here claimed the planet lost "all power," Morin has a point.

Tom