Transits to angles - mundane or ecliptic?

[Jim Eshelman]

In his original 1957 report on Sidereal solar and lunar ingresses, Bradley spoke with great conviction that the mundoscope was the correct framework for examining all Sidereal ingresses and their progressions and transits.

I agree with him completely with regard to planets in the original ingresses themselves - what I term static charts, in the conventional dictionary sense of the word, i.e., that they aren't moving. When a chart sets up for a specific moment and place, it makes sense that the actual proximity of the planets to its angles (meaning, the mundane position) is what matters, and the charts bear this out.

However, in the first year of working with these charts, I kept getting thrown with regard to trying to apply this approach to transits to Capsolar and Cansolar angles, or to quotidian crossings. Once I realized that the correct boundary for strong influence was 2° and not 1°, all the anomalies fell aside and ecliptical contacts to these angles started showing the sharpest hits. One example that I gave in recent editions of SMA (of many that I could have given) was for the CapQ for the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius, With CapQ Ascendant 7°41' Aries, transiting Mars was 6°58' Aries (0°43' ecliptically) but rose, for that latitude, at 16°23' Aries (8°42' in mundo). The difference is dramatic.

Nonetheless... Bradley was quite firm. I suspect he was not considering, in 1956-57, that one approach might be better for transits of ingress and progressed angles, and another for the ingresses themselves. He also had some awesome examples of the mundane contacts.

His best examples were for earthquakes.

Therefore, I now intend to recalculate, for my earthquake collection (which includes all of his examples), all the transits to Capsolar and Cansolar cusps and their quotidians, comparing ecliptical (e) to mundane (m). This will only include conjunctions with the horizon and meridian, since squares to MC and Asc (being ecliptical) aren't affected, and EP/WP contacts are measured in right ascension regardless. - I will not list every single contact, but will concentrate on those that seem relevant to this study. (All the data are publically available in case someone wants to perform an exhaustive check.)

Let's see if I'm led to a different conclusion than in the first months of aggressively pursuing these methods anew...

[Jim Eshelman]

GENROKU
t. Pluto conj. Cansolar Asc
23°26' Can Pluto-m
26°52' Can Pluto-e
27°51' Can Asc

t. Jupiter conj. Cansolar MC
20°40' Ari Jupiter-e
21°02' Ari Jupiter-m
21°23' Ari MC

Pluto unquestionably is closer ecliptically. One wonders if Jupiter being closer mundanely isn't also an argument for the slightly wider (but still Jupiter-Pluto effective) ecliptical contact.

FORT TEJON
CapQ MC op. t. Uranus
28°26' Ari t. Uranus-e
28°30' Ari t. Uranus-m
28°39' Lib p. MC

CanQ MC conj. t./s. Pluto
9°59' s. Pluto-e
10°57' Ari t. Pluto-e
11°41' Ari p. MC
15°48' Ari s. Pluto-m
16°40' Ari t. Pluto-m

Uranus is too close for the difference to matter, but Pluto strikingly prefers ecliptical.

SAN FRANCISCO
CapQ Asc conj. t. Saturn
17°58' Aqu t. Saturn-e
19°41' Aqu p. Asc
20°52' Aqu t. Saturn-m

CapQ MC op. t./s. Pluto
27°01' Sco p. MC
27°38' Tau t. Pluto-e
27°43' Tau s. Pluto-e
28°08' Tau t. Pluto-m
28°15' Tau s. Pluto-m

This was one of Bradley's most prized examples of the mundane working far better than the ecliptical. However, for Pluto there is a slight advantage to the ecliptical. For Saturn, on which DAB focused, the orbs are 1°43' vs. 1°12', with a small advantage to the mundane. Neither gives a decisive preference, since all of these contacts would generally be judged of comparable value.

AVEZZANO
CapQ Asc conj. s. Saturn
18°24' Tau s. Saturn-e
19°43' Tau p. Asc
20°35' Tau s. Saturn-m

t. Neptune op. Cansolar MC
5°37' Can t. Neptune-m
5°42' Can t. Neptune-e
6°11' Cap s. MC

CanQ MC conj. s. Neptune
4°09' Can s. Neptune-m
4°14' Can s. Neptune-e
4°27' Can s. MC

The Saturn is the only one that has distinction here, and the mundane version is better. (This is one of Bradley's pet examples.)

GREAT KANTO
t. Saturn conj. Capsolar MC
24°02' Vir t. Saturn-e
24°59' Vir t. Saturn-m
25°31' Vir s. MC

Mundane Saturn hit is better. This is another of Bradley's pet events.

XINING
t. Saturn conj. Capsolar Asc
9°51' Sco t. Saturn-m
11°00' Sco t. Saturn-e
12°05' Sco s. Asc

CanQ MC conj. s. Uranus
5°40' Pis s. Uranus-e
5°54' Pis p. MC
6°01' Pis s. Uranus-m

CanQ Asc conj. Pluto
20°37' Gem t. Pluto-e
20°49' Gem s. Pluto-e
21°26 Gem t. Pluto-m
21°48' Gem s. Pluto-m
22°28' Gem p. Asc

Pluto is slightly better mundanely - one of them is partile, everything else is within 2° - but the big one is Saturn, where the ecliptical hit is near-partile and the mundane is more than twice as far away. I think ecliptical wins this one.

LONG BEACH
CapQ MC op. s. Uranus
25°35' Vir p. MC
25°46' Pis s. Uranus-e
26°00' Pis s. Uranus-m
27°41' Pis t. Uranus-e
27°55' Pis t. Uranus-m

t. Saturn op. Cansolar Asc
16°55' Can s. Asc
17°58' Cap t. Saturn-m
18°11' Cap t. Saturn-e

The differences are quite small. A thin case could be made for favoring mundo for the Saturn, but neither is partile and the two Saturn positions are much closer to each other than either is to the angle. This difference is not enough to rely on.

ERZINCAN
CapQ Asc op. t. Saturn
29°15' Vir p. Asc
0°31' Ari t. Saturn-e
1°31' Ari t. Saturn-m

This time the ecliptical Saturn contact is clearly better - by a whole degree, and with the mundane contact be altogether questionable.

OLYMPIA
CanQ Asc conj. t./s. Uranus
2°52' Gem t. Uranus-m
3°10' Gem t. Uranus-e
3°47' Gem p. Asc
3°45' Gem s. Uranus-m
3°59' Gem s. Uranus-e

CanQ MC op. t. Saturn
3°36' Aqu p. MC
5°33' Leo t. Saturn-e
6°13' Leo t. Saturn-m

Uranus makes insufficient difference, but Saturn makes a big difference. Again, ecliptical wins.

TEHACHAPI
CapQ MC op. s./t. Uranus
17°22' Gem s. Uranus-e
17°24' Gem s. Uranus-m
19°42' Sag p. MC
21°02' Gem t. Uranus-e
21°05' Gem t. Uranus-m

CapQ Asc op. s. Neptune
24°58' Vir t. Neptune-e
27°34' Vir t. Neptune-m
27°37' Vir s. Neptune-e
28°58' Pis p. Asc
0°11' Lib s. Neptune-m

Uranus makes no difference, as usual. Neptune is quite interesting, since, for s. Neptune, there is only a little difference, but for t. Neptune mundane puts it in the game. We'd read the chart the same either way - one Neptune or two doesn't matter much - but it's probably a technical advantage for mundo.

KAMCHATKA
CanQ Asc conj. s. Saturn
13°49' Vir s. Saturn-m
15°11' Vir s. Saturn-e
15°18' Vir p. Asc

Ecliptical is far better, though either would technically count.

[Jim Eshelman]

GREAT CHILEAN
CapQ MC conj. t. Saturn
22°18' Sag p. MC
23°41' Sag t. Saturn-m
23°44' Sag t. Saturn-e

Insufficient difference to make any difference.

GREAT ALASKAN
(Nothing to test.)

SYLMAR
(Nothing to test.)

LOMS PRIETA
t. Uranus conj. Capsolar MC
6°00' Sag s. MC
7°21' Sag t. Uranus-e AND t. Uranus-m

No difference. (CanQ Asc on s. Jupiter is nearly as close both ways, no practical difference.)

NORTHRIDGE
(Nothing to test.)

SUMATRA-ANDAMAN
CapQ MC op. t. Mars
4°23' Tau p. MC
5°27' Sco t. Mars-e
5°30' Sco t. Mars-m

CanQ Asc op. p. Moon, t. Saturn
0°17' Cap p. Asc
0°34' Can t. Saturn-m
0°35' Can t. Saturn-e
0°36' Can p. Moon-e
1°53' Can p. Moon-m

The main focus is on the CanQ, and the main emphasis there is on Moon's placement., Either is within a 2° orb, but the ecliptical is far closer and also emphasizes the 0°01' Moon-Saturn conjunction. Ecliptic is much better.

TOHOKU
(Nothing to test.)

NEPAL
(Nothing to check that will make any difference.)

AMATRICE
t. Pluto op. Cansolar Asc
19°36' Gem s. Asc
20°13' Sag t. Pluto-e
21°19' Sag t. Pluto-m

Ecliptical is distinctly better.

[Jim Eshelman]

The weight of the evidence is in favor or ecliptical. Pretty much, every case would work (even with wider orbs) with ecliptical contacts, and some would not work with mundane ones. The best mundane examples are usually the three or four pet examples that Bradley used to make his original point and, while these are significant quakes, they are in a minority.

I stick with my conclusion that transits to solar ingress angles and their quotidian angles need to be taken ecliptically.

[Jim Eshelman]

Thanks for taking the time and doing the work to answer this question, Jim.

[Jim Eshelman]

Thanks for taking the time and doing the work to answer this question, Jim.

Indeed, not only for this, but for your (Jim's) entire work in enriching SMA and Sidereal Astrology overall. Thank you, Jim.