16
Is this tight orb always used?
It's not really an orb; it's a definition. However, there are slight differences here and there depending on the astrologer. 16 - 17 minutes is usual. I've never seen an astrologer take it to 23, but I suppose that's not impossible. Look at the chart and Venus and see if you think Venus combust is more accurate in Macron's case.

19
Fleur wrote: opening post on this thread says to be Cazimi a planet has to be within 16 minutes of the Sun. Is this tight orb always used?
Fleur: I'm no scholar of antiquities/medieval stuff, but in my translation of the Elements of the Art of Astrology by Al-Biruni, (10th century) he gives the orb of cazimi as 16 minutes of arc, like Lilly. For all I know this may be Lilly's source too.
Martin Gansten wrote:
Fleur wrote:Is this tight orb always used?
No, the standard definition going back to Paul of Alexandria and Porphyry and used throughout the Middle Ages is one degree ('when they happen to be of like degree with the sun, not being distant from it by more or less than 59 minutes').
Like most topics in astrology, ancient, medieval or modern, there are many divergent opinions, clearly cazimi is no exception.
Cheers,
~A.

20
Thanks for interesting thoughts about what orb to give Cazimi, and as Tom said look at charts such as Brigitte Macron's and see how her Venus manifests. Also Rocko's suggestion to see if outer planets can also be Cazimi with the Sun.

I had noticed for a long time that there are a few famous rock musicians who have their Mars within one degree of their Suns. I associated a strong Mars with rock musicians, so this would be appropriate.

David Bowie, Patti Smith and Nick Cave all have Sun within one degree conjunction with Mars.

So maybe it is worth keeping an open mind that Cazimi could be up to one degree?

22
Mark wrote:Arvind wrote:
I've been through the past posts on combustion, so sorry to add more bytes to the topic... Narrow field question here, just Cazimi.
Actually, even your ‘narrow field question’ has come up before here a few times before. In particular these two threads I had a role in:

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic ... ed75c6bcd5

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4348

Arvind wrote:
Philosophical arguments aside, does anyone have any "experience first" comments about Cazimi even being a valid principle in delineation?
Or is the whole concept redundant in practice?
Its one thing to discuss the historical and philosophical origins of a technique but asking whether it works in praxis is always more subjective. We have numerous factors in a chart to examine so isolating one specific element on its own like cazimi and clarifying it as the exclusive or definitive explanation for something manifesting in a chart is an uphill challenge.

Traditionally, there are numerous ways of seeing a planet as more efficacious in a chart according to essential dignity, house placement/rulership, aspectual connection, sect, solar phase, fixed star conjunctions, antiscia etc. The traditional dignity scoring systems provide an indicator as to how these were assessed:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/schoener_dignity_scores.pdf

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/dig5.html#liltab

Arvind wrote:
As Lilly says, "when a Planet is within 16 minutes of the Sun, he is said to be in Cazimi, or heart of the Sun, and then it's an addition of fortune, and he is wonderous strong." (Horary book).
I'm afraid you cannot really escape consideration of the historical and philosophical issues in regards this kind of subject. As you will have noticed in the links above the ancient and early medieval astrologers did not use the 16 or- 17 minutes- definition used by Lilly and other renaissance astrologers. Actually, even up to the later medieval period some astrologers applied a wider orb of cazimi extending half a degree from the Sun. But originally, in the ancient and early medieval period they considered planets as specially connected with the Sun if they were within a degree of each other. For example, the Perso-Arabic astrologer Sahl used this approach.

So a planet considered combust by someone working with Lilly’s approach would be cazimi according to a more ancient or early medieval outlook. I personally, work with the more ancient approach myself.

I see cazimi as just one of a number of astrological factors that link planets to solar phase. Others include oriental and occidental of the Sun, combustion/under the rays, retrograde , stationary or direct motion, planetary speed, and heliacal rising and setting.

Arvind wrote:
Which raises the question, is Lily talking specifically about its use in horary, or does the principle apply in natal work as well?

I think its clear that Lilly and other renaissance astrologers like Johannes Schoener use the same dignity tables to assess planetary strength with both horary and natal charts.

However, we define cazimi it seems to be seen as like an oasis in a desert of combustion or calm eye in the middle of a hurricane. Planets in this way are seen as protected from the detrimental effects of combustion. And beyond that their close conjunction to the Sun is seen as highly benefic in influence.

While this situation is a unique exception to the effects of combustion for renaissance astrologers like Lilly there were several indicators of this in ancient astrology. In Hellenistic astrology planets in their ‘chariots’ ie domicile, exaltation or bound were seen as immune to the harmful beams of the Sun. So if we are looking at praxis its interesting to understand different ways to approach the effects of the Sun’s rays and cazimi.

I note James’s comment about Mercury in proximity to the Sun in the Johnny Cash’s chart. Actually, a few astrologers have made the case before that Mercury appears to be less effected by combustion than other planets due to its constant astronomical proximity to the Sun. Others such a David McCann have gone further and suggested that combustion does not operate in nativities at all. Although McCann conceded horary seems to be different. I well recall discussing this with Deborah Houlding and her strong disagreement with McCann on this point.

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/mercuryorbit.html

As I see it the point is not that combustion has no effect at all in nativities. Its just that the frames of reference are completely different. I have long had the view that examples of lack of dignity such as being under the beams or rays of the Sun manifest differently in horary and natal charts. Philosophically I would suggest this is because fate works out differently between the short and long term time frames involved. For example, a combust and retrograde significator for the querent in a negative house is so weakening many sources suggest the matter cannot turn out favourably for the querent in a horary. After all a horary usually normally works within a timeframe of days, and at most a few weeks or at the outside months. In contrast in a nativity we are discussing at least many decades. Although in the past this might be seen as manifesting in shorter life expectancy or an indication of early death in childhood.

You can compare this to a race. In a short sprint if you just stumble and fall you are effectively out of the race. But in a race like the marathon early set backs can be made up for later. I don’t think this is guaranteed but depends on how the person expresses their free will and expresses the potential of that planet.

Below are examples of nativities with Mercury within 1 degree of the Sun which I offer to all Skyscript members to aid further research. As not all nativities listed are AA or A the conjunction may be more than 1 degree in some instances.

Composers & Musicians
-Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
-Giuseppe Verdi
-Irving Berlin
-Johnny Cash
-Jimmy Page
-Don McLean
-Carole King
-Lorenza Pavarotti
-Sonny Bono
-Lena Zavaroni
-Annie Lennox


Writers
-Edgar Allan Poe
-Marcel Proust
-Gertrude Stein
-Alan Watts
-Philip K Dick

Actors
-Sharon Tate
-Keanu Reeves
-Sophie Marceau
-Elizabeth Taylor
-Jennifer Jason Leigh
-Christopher Reeve
-Omar Sharif
-Dirk Benedict
-Tatum O'Neal
-David Jason
-Tom Baker
-Pauline Collins

Others/Misc
-Henry The Navigator-15th century Portugese explorer. First European to explore and chart African coastline.

-Thomas More-English lawyer, social philosopher, author, statesman, and noted Renaissance humanist. He was also a councillor to Henry VIII, and Lord High Chancellor of England from October 1529 to 16 May 1532. He wrote Utopia, published in 1516, about the political system of an imaginary, ideal island nation.

-Louis XVI of France-King of France
-Albert Schweitzer-German humanitarian, philosopher, physician, musician, clergyman, missionary and writer.
-Balthazar Klossowski de Rola-French artist
-Benito Mussolini-Italian Journalist/Fascist Dictator
-Bill Hicks-American Comedian
-Louis Althusser-French Philosopher
-Jacques Derrida-French Philosopher
-General Bernard Montgommery-British WWII General
-Joseph Campbell-American writer on comparative mythology
-James Hunt-British Formula One Driver
-Giorgio Armani-Italian Fashion designer
-Paris Hilton-American socialite/TV celebrity
-Emmanuel Macron-French President
Excellent post Mark, very helpful.

In case anyone is curious about whether cazimi has to be by longitude and latitude, I looked at a handful of the charts (Mozart, Edgar Allen Poe, Alan Watts and Sophie Marceau) and all of them were cazimi by longitude only, latitude was usually a degree or so off (you can see the latitude position of planets on astro.com charts using the "PDF additional tables" option that's above the chart). IOW for the few charts I checked, none of their Mercurys were astronomically "in the heart of the Sun". Apparently cazimi using only longitude is legitimate and to my knowledge the Hellenistic sources also used this definition of cazimi.

My reasoning to explain this discrepancy is that (per Robert Schmidt) Hellenistic astrology is based upon numerical logic that's symbolic and doesn't reflect actual astronomical reality. More importantly, we have to consider that Hellenistic astrology was based purely on what could be seen with the naked eye. To the naked eye I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to differentiate between a cazimi using longitude + latitude or a cazimi using the former (not that I suggest looking that closely at the Sun to begin with!).

That being said, I do have some charts with cazimi planets (longitude only) and the natives did have situations involving secrecy that were represented by the houses ruled by the cazimi planet thus implying that their "cazimi" planet is actually combust. I'm curious how many of the above prominent charts (suggesting a powerful Mercury) also had secretive situations involving their Mercury/houses ruled by it? The difference between cazimi and combust may be more blurred than we think.
Transire suum pectus mundoque potiri