Transits to angles - mundane or ecliptic?
Posted: Wed May 10, 2017 7:20 am
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...
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...
