John Dee & Elizabeth - mundane angle contacts

Use this sub-forum to post birth information and analysis of famous relationships. The purpose is to provide a better record and research base for increasing our understanding of the workings of synastry.
Post Reply
User avatar
Jim Eshelman
Are You Sirius?
Posts: 12968
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:40 pm
Gender:

John Dee & Elizabeth - mundane angle contacts

Post by Jim Eshelman » Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:11 am

An ultimately unresolved question is whether contacts of one person's planets to another's angles should be taken ecliptically or mundanely. I've been leaning toward ecliptical for quite a while, for many reasons but especially because of key relationship contacts in my own life, e.g., my mate's local Ascendant conjoins my Moon 0°05'; but I do consider it ultimately unresolved.

Here is a striking historic example that leans the evidence in the opposite direction. Sir John Dee was born July 13, 1527, 4:12 PM, London, England. Queen Elizabeth I was born September 17, 1533, 2:54PM, Greenwich, England. He was arguably her most trusted advisor.

Ecliptically, there is an important-seeming interchange for this "most trusted advisor" status, but its orbs seem wide:

25°49' Gemini Elizabeth's Dsc
24°05' Gemini Dee's Mercury (1°44' from Dsc)
21°00' Gemini Dee's Jupiter (4°49' from Dsc)
(Mercury-Jupiter conj. is 3°05')

His Mercury-Jupiter conjunction on her angle seems a perfect description of the main feature of their relationship. Mercury is close in any case, but the Jupiter contact seems mediocre at best.

This tightens considerably if we look at his planets mundanely inside the framework of her chart (using the spreadsheet Derek provided recently, discussed elsewhere on this forum). Within Elizabeth's chart, Dee has:

Mercury 1°28' below Descendant
Jupiter 2°52' below Descendant
Mercury-Jupiter mundane conjunction 1°24'

Now, this isn't definitive, but it's definitely worth a mention. It isn't proof (the aspect existed in any case, and the Mercury contact was close in any case), but it is evidence to be weighed.

There are several interesting things in this mundane framework. Looking at their charts ecliptically, it's obvious his Pluto is near her Ascendant, but not right on top of it. In fact, it's 6°27' below Asc. What is a surprise is that his Moon, over half a sign from her Ascendant, is only 5°00' below her Ascendant - this is much more reflective of the consular intimacy they seem to have had. Additionally, this means that in her universe (in the framework of her natal), Dee has a 1°27' Moon-Pluto conjunction that doesn't exist ecliptically. This is... interesting.

His Sun is mundanely 7°22' above her Dsc mundanely, but about half a sign away ecliptically. Again, it is a measure of influence.
Jim Eshelman
www.jeshelman.com

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest