Hello:-)

I would like to know if someone has anything to say about a situation that: the Sun is in Virgo at 12 degrees, Mars is in Virgo at 17 degrees and Mercury is in Virgo at 21 degrees.

The Ascendant is Aries, the 8th house is in Scorpio and the planets quoted above are in the 6th.

The configuration pertains to a native who died in the 11th September: she was in one of the airplanes crushed against the World Trade Center.

My question is: Is Mars, a combust planet,invisible and burned, able to afflict the Sun?

I think the answer is NOT, since a combust benefic loses his eficacy, so the same might happen with a malefic.

To say the truth I feel kind of confused regarding the action of combust planets. I don?t know what kind of action they can undertake relating the houses ruled by them.

For example if Mercury is combust and rules the 9th and the 12th, in Gemini and Virgo, it means that the kind of issues related to these houses will be unable to be seen or will not work properly? Or the matters related with these houses will be damaged? Or not happen at all?

All comments will be much appreciated!

Clelia Romano

Tom wrote:Every once in a while combustion pops up as a topic, so you might want to research this a bit, but it is always good to have a refresher. Just what does it mean when a planet is combust? There are apparently texts that claim a combust planet is powerless. This cannot be the literal truth. As Morin points out, if the planet is powerless, what rules the domiciles of the combust planet? Who disposits planets in the signs of the combust planet? So we might argue the planet is weaker than it would otherwise be in the same position without the Sun so close.

Suppose though the planet is essentially strong, such as in his own domicile. He then disposits or "rules" the Sun, but if he is powerless, or even seriously weakened, he cannot do that. Some argue therefore a planet in domicile and/or perhaps exaltation cannot be combust or more correctly is not weakened by its proximity to the Sun. This, of course, runs counter to the argument that a planet is weakened when combust because the Sun overpowers it and it is invisible when rising. Of course all planets are invisible when rising in the daytime.

Tom

In Schmidt's recent translation of Antiochus, definition 14, it states that stars in their own chariots are mighty, even if under the rays of the Sun. A planet in its own domicile, exaltation or confine (possibly trigon as well) is said to be in it's own chariot (Schmidt emphasizes "covered chariot") such that it is not blinded by the beams. It is still acting, but in a hidden capacity. What is interesting about combustion is that he says that the degrees in front of the Sun are the "impious degrees" and that the degrees behind the Sun are the "pious degrees" where the Sun has recently been; having purged those degrees of impurity. Venus, being the most pious planet, is allowed to leave the beams of the Sun before any other (because she is brightest). Venus gets her signification for rites of religious observance (such as cleanliness being next to Godliness) and aids the greater benefic Jupiter in this area. In todays world, Venus is the planet of beauty (adding makeup to cleanliness).

As to rulership of a given place, the medieval's had the idea that more than one planet might have control of a house. We have the idea of the almuten from this where in some cases Mars rules Capricorn based upon a weighting scheme. The Hellenistic literature expands this idea considerably, but not through a weighting, but through sect and the actual positions of the planets being able to testify or being called to witness for a given place. When a planet is in aversion, the other may take over (domicile or exaltation). What is going to shock most people, is that the exaltation lord is the preferred lord (according to Schmidt) because the domicile lord has the job of paying attention to or giving heed, and in most cases it has to pay attention to a planet of the opposite sect and lift it upon a pedistal against the wishes of his/her own party affiliation. This is why the joys of the planets are for the most part where there is no exaltation, because in such cases they don't have to share power. The exceptions to this are the feminine planets which like to cooperate and Mercury who is common to both sects and stays out of the power struggle by lifting himself up in Virgo.

In cases where neither the domicile or exaltation lord can witness it's own house, there is another doctrine on joint domicile masters that involves the trigons. Schmidt says that this appears to be prior to our understanding of the traditional trigon lords as we know them today.

This is why the joys of the planets are for the most part where there is no exaltation, because in such cases they don't have to share power.

The joys of the planets are in houses, not signs. What am I missing here?

Tom

Tom wrote:

This is why the joys of the planets are for the most part where there is no exaltation, because in such cases they don't have to share power.

The joys of the planets are in houses, not signs. What am I missing here?

Tom

Actually I think Curtis misspoke. If you look at the Thema Mundi, with the 1st sign being Cancer, all the signs with exaltations, except those exalting Saturn and Mars, are the places of the Joys.

Hello Tom!:-)

you said:

So we might argue the planet is weaker than it would otherwise be in the same position without the Sun so close

.

May be this is the only possible answer.
To imagine that the Sun can?t be afflicted by a malefic in conjunction with him is difficult to believe.

Suppose though the planet is essentially strong, such as in his own domicile. He then disposits or "rules" the Sun, but if he is powerless, or even seriously weakened, he cannot do that. Some argue therefore a planet in domicile and/or perhaps exaltation cannot be combust or more correctly is not weakened by its proximity to the Sun. This, of course, runs counter to the argument that a planet is weakened when combust because the Sun overpowers it and it is invisible when rising. Of course all planets are invisible when rising in the daytime.

Thanks for saying that! I was just thinking that we frequently can?t see the planets in the daytime! Why invisibility is so important? Because they are visible in another part of the world? Okay, it counts. But astrology is earth centered, so the important thing is what happens in your own sky. Or not?
Probably the primitive astrology was Moon oriented, because at night the planets were visible, if above the horizon.

This brings us to your specific question and observation. If, as it is argued, a weak malefic is dangerous, but in a house like the 12th it is less so because the planet cannot act so much in the 12th, it is only logical to assume a weak malefic that is combust the Sun is similarly prevented from doing his worst.

May be you?re right and I?m fighting against shadows. But what about the accidental malefics?
We know that any planet in a malefic house (and the 6th and the 12th are malefic houses), is considered an accidental malefic, even Jupiter or Venus. Directions to accidental malefics can bring a huge amount of problems. So, may be the "bad" cadent houses are not so powerless as we would like;-) I have clients with children having big problems, including Down Syndrome, with Saturn and Mars in cadent houses, specially in the 12th and the 6th.
I?m more and more believing that to have malefics in angular houses is easier to manage, because we are more aware of them. Consciousness can avoid some problems perhaps.
Or at least, if it is not easier, it is not so dangerous as we used to think.
I have been studying tones of charts and, even not doing statistics, I?m increasingly inclined to think in that way.

Yet the ASC ruler in your example suggests a violent death.

I can?t agree with this point, Tom. The Astrodatabank gave me only 5 in 126 cases of death by War or Terrorism with Aries ascending.

I am increasingly less inclined to view combustion as the serious debility it is made out to be. At least I don't think it is all that severe in nativities. Horary seems to be a different matter. Combustion may prove to be an impediment to the planet's actions and potential, but I don't think it is anywhere near powerless.

I do not know about horary, I?m still not sure, but I totally agree with you respecting nativities .

Many thanks for your ideas: I felt relieved expressing my doubts and thoughts and reading yours.
The ancients were less fortunate than we are: they were not able to talk with so many astrologers and share fastly information and studies? results. Internet is a blessing!
Bye and thanks again!

Clelia

Actually I think Curtis misspoke. If you look at the Thema Mundi, with the 1st sign being Cancer, all the signs with exaltations, except those exalting Saturn and Mars, are the places of the Joys.

I'm sure he did, and I know nothing of the Thema Mundi, but if we begin with Cancer as the first sign, the 5th sign would be Scorpio. Nothing is exalted in Scorpio, but Venus joys in the 5th.

Tom wrote:

Actually I think Curtis misspoke. If you look at the Thema Mundi, with the 1st sign being Cancer, all the signs with exaltations, except those exalting Saturn and Mars, are the places of the Joys.

I'm sure he did, and I know nothing of the Thema Mundi, but if we begin with Cancer as the first sign, the 5th sign would be Scorpio. Nothing is exalted in Scorpio, but Venus joys in the 5th.

True, and nothing (except maybe the nodes) is exalted in Gemini & Sagittarius, and there Saturn and Mars are in their Joys. That those 3 have their joys in signs without exaltation is related somehow though I can't say I've figured it out. That Venus is the domicile lady of Saturn's exalted sign is part of it, I think.

May be you?re right and I?m fighting against shadows. But what about the accidental malefics?

I should have been more clear. I was only using essential dignity or debility when I said strong or weak. Saturn in Aries is a weak malefic. Saturn in Libra is a strong malefic. Once we place the malefic in a house then we can see his potential for good or ill.

An accidental malefic such as, say a middling Jupiter opposed to a nasty Saturn would have to be viewed the same way if we are to be consistent. In other words if that Jupiter finds himself in the 12th his potential for malice accidental or essential, would be lessened.

I can?t agree with this point, Tom. The Astrodatabank gave me only 5 in 126 cases of death by War or Terrorism with Aries ascending.

What I meant was that a combust ascendant ruler is one indication of a violent death or it symbolizes a violent death. Whether or not things work out that way is another matter. I did not mean to imply that everyone or even many people with Mars, Lord ASC combust would die violently. It's a red flag, not a sure thing.

Tom

Hi Curtis!

I was missing some Hellenistic stuff! Thanks for refreshing my mind on some interesting points.

In Schmidt's recent translation of Antiochus, definition 14, it states that stars in their own chariots are mighty, even if under the rays of the Sun. A planet in its own domicile, exaltation or confine (possibly trigon as well) is said to be in it's own chariot (Schmidt emphasizes "covered chariot") such that it is not blinded by the beams. It is still acting, but in a hidden capacity.

O, that is not so good as I imagined in the point you quoted Antiochus. To act in a hidden way is not so effective as to simply act, and it seems that the combustion is still debility.
In other words is the same that Tom said: the planet is weaker but not impotent.

What is interesting about combustion is that he says that the degrees in front of the Sun are the "impious degrees" and that the degrees behind the Sun are the "pious degrees" where the Sun has recently been;

It reminds me the Medieval concept of occidentality and orientality.Interesting the philosophy behind the idea!

I did not get your point here, though:

but not through a weighting, but through sect and the actual positions of the planets being able to testify or being called to witness for a given place

Can you please explain how the sect is used to give testimony?

In cases where neither the domicile or exaltation lord can witness it's own house, there is another doctrine on joint domicile masters that involves the trigons. Schmidt says that this appears to be prior to our understanding of the traditional trigon lords as we know them today.

I loved this part! And it is so true..not to mention that works perfectly!
Medieval astrology used the triplicity lords as well, but not taking into account basically the trigon of the Moon at night and the one of the Sun in daytime births.

I have Schmidt?s book, but I?m jammed into the Liber Aristotilis of Hugo of Santalla, comparing with the Persian Nativities. I want to read Definitions and Foundations carefully!

best

Clelia

Tom wrote:The joys are a bit of a mystery as is Saturn's exaltation in Libra. John Frawley wrote a couple of articles in the first two issues of the Astrologer's Apprentice about the joys and he related them to the story of the Fall in Genesis and to Milton's Paradise Lost. It was great reading. They can be downloaded in pdf format at
johnfrawley.com

Yes, Tom, it is a mystery.I have been racking my brain to discover its origins, and I figured out that the best explanation is the Thema Mundi which is also a mystery in itself;-)
For me, the best hyphotesis is that when astrology was "created", when the human mind realized that skies and earth were linked, the planets were in a certain place in the zodiac: the place of the exaltations and in the degrees of them.

Anyway, for me makes perfect sense that Saturn exalts in Libra. Libra is much more easy to understand if you take Saturn as the exaltation lord of the sign. Libra is icy, diplomatic ice.

I can?t understant, though, the origins of the exaltations, this is a mystery to me.

Clelia