Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

(Cyril Fagan in "Solunars," January 1955 installment.)

In the foregoing we have seen how, under the impact of the transits to the natal Pluto, the native's erratic, wayward, or antisocial conduct at the time may lead him into conflict with society to the extent of jeopardizing his freedom and endangering his life. When Pluto is itself the transiting planet, then it is the native's turn to be exposed to the wayward and erratic actions of the world about him. The transits of Pluto are the most dramatic and most eventful of all configurations and seldom fail to produce a marked crisis in one's life and precipitate immediate action. If Mars, as ruler of Scorpio, is the significator of passion, sport, contests, and heated arguments, Pluto is surely the planet of invasions, political upheavals, revolutions, liquidations, concentration camps and, in short, cold-blooded war. This accords with its rulership of the imperial Aries and the behavior of its motion, for when in October, 1989, it comes to its perihelion (Libra 17°47') it will have invaded the orbit of Neptune to the extent of 35 million miles! An examination of the horoscopes of the chief political figures demonstrates that it was the transit of Pluto that was responsible for the two World Wars as well as for the French Revolution.

The first thing that jumped into my mind when I saw your post here, is DC's 2020 Capsolar, where t. Pluto comes into partile orb cnj an angular Sun, not to mention t. Saturn exact cnj Capsolar Sun, MC, Mercury during this solar year. Of course this precedes by one year the DC Mars-Saturn Capsolar in 2021, definitely not good. I have t. Jupiter entering partile cnj to n. Mercury now, which has being going off/on partile n. Mercury last couple of months. I think I see something very important financially for USA with DC's 2020 Capsolar, which I will later post and try to explain in your thread Future Capsolars.

If Mars, as ruler of Scorpio, is the significator of passion, sport, contests, and heated arguments, Pluto is surely the planet of invasions, political upheavals, revolutions, liquidations, concentration camp and, in short, cold-blooded war.

Something smells a little off here when Mars, the very god of war and calamities, isn't associated with war and calamities.

Maybe I'm wrong here but astrologers from Egypt to Rome have described Mars as the planet of such things as pestilences, bloody warfare, crime, the deaths of leaders, and violent usurpations. It also signified various "anti-Venus" things such as relationships breaking apart, rape, and the death of partners. Mars is a malefic for a reason.

An addendum: if you're going to talk about prominent commanders and dictators over the last 100 years, then you have about an equal amount of Aries and Scorpio Suns, with quite a lot of Sagittarius Suns too, surprisingly enough. The prominent Aries Suns in WW II were Hitler, President Trueman in the latter days of the war, and Emperor Hirohito. Fagan also describes many Scorpios being prominent in WW II from Churchill, Charles de Gaul, and Rommel, and does state himself that many Scorpios were prominent in the war. Among Sagittarius Suns, we had Stalin and Mao Zedong. The trend seems to continue after WW II. The most prominent Aries Sun dictator since then was Saddam Hussein, while the post-WW II world had to deal with two Scorpio dictators; Franco and Pinochet. And don't even get me started with the mafia, whose most notorious members had Scorpio and Capricorn Suns; there's cold-blooded war for you.

Just by logic alone, I have been on the Pluto does rule Aries belief. In order of planets; Uranus-Aquarius, Neptune-Pisces, Pluto-Aries and so on.

James Condor wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:46 am Just by logic alone, I have been on the Pluto does rule Aries belief. In order of planets; Uranus-Aquarius, Neptune-Pisces, Pluto-Aries and so on.

That's a schematic argument, not observational, but it does seem to be a pattern evident in the nature of the signs. I endorse it.

There's another wholly theoretical argument that I'll mention because I find it humorous. When Pluto was first discovered, one argument for its rulership of Scorpio - one that was expressed and kept alive by 1930s era editions of Llewellyn George's epochal A to Z - went like this: Pluto is the god of death. The 8th house is the house of death. In the accepted Aries-rising model of sign-to-house analogies, Scorpio is the 8th house. Pluto rules Scorpio.

But with what we know post-Fagan, the same argument would read: Pluto is the god of death. The 7th house is the house of death. In the original Libra-rising model of sign-to-house analogies, Aries is the 7th house. Ergo, Pluto rules Aries.

Purely theoretical, of course, but I love the way it stands the original 1930s justification on its head.

And just to screw with people's head a little more: At one point, Fagan speculated that the solar and lunar rulership cycles (emanating two directions outward from Cancer-Leo) gave separate rulership schemes for Sun and Moon in the signs. I don't buy it mostly because, having Moon in Aquarius, I'm acutely aware of how Uranian it is (and how utterly un-Saturnian I am overall). Nonetheless, it has enough in it to twist your mind and keep you preoccupied for a while. It looks like this:

Sun rules Leo
Moon rules Cancer

FOR SUN IN THE CONSTELLATIONS:
Virgo: Mercury
Libra: Venus
Scorpio: Mars
Sagittarius: Jupiter
Capricorn: Saturn
Aquarius: Uranus
Pisces: Neptune
Aries: Pluto
Taurus: (Venus or undiscovered planet)
Gemini: (Mercury or undiscovered planet)

FOR MOON IN THE CONSTELLATIONS:
Gemini: Mercury
Taurus: Venus
Aries: Mars
Pisces: Jupiter
Aquarius: Saturn
Capricorn: Uranus
Sagittarius: Neptune
Scorpio: Pluto
Libra: (Venus or undiscovered planet)
Virgo (Mercury or undiscovered planet)

I think there is a lot of hype over Pluto, and way too many people (Fagan included, sadly) that seem to regard Pluto as some kind of ramped up Mars, assuming all the qualities astrologers associated with Mars since antiquity. (Meanwhile, Fagan downgrades Mars to merely being about sports and arguments.) You don't see Ouranos taking over all of Saturn's qualities or Neptune taking over all of Jupiters.

My two cents:

When it comes down to violent social changes, revolutions, massive upheavals etc. are Mars and Ouranos. The events are often grandiose (Ouranos) and traumatizing (Mars), and events deal with large populations or the human race as a whole, with little concern over the individual.

Pluto has more to do with personal psychological changes and the grand cycles of birth/reincarnation/etc. and generally has a positive and reviving influence. Pluto's effects are like spring cleaning or going to therapy to resolve your deep personal issues, or some major personal event that profoundly shapes your psychology. Pluto has a heavy atomistic emphasis, so concerned with the individual it is almost to the point of solipsism.

The mythological archetypes speak to this as well. Mars/Ares/Nergel/Yahweh were always violent, rapacious, and vengeful. Even the benevolent Horus (Egypt's Mars archetype) was a warrior and avenger of his father's death, someone who would retaliate an eye for an eye. Sekhmet (Egypt's Martial counterpart to the Venereal Hathor) nearly wiped out the entire human race to punish humans for their wickedness.

Ouranos/Caelus/Atum/Holy Spirit were the primordial first lords of the universe and represented the boundless cosmos. And many of them met violent struggles or even violent demises during those ancient times that shaped the fundamental nature of the cosmos/reality as we know it.

Pluto/Hades/Osiris/Ptah by contrast were all comparatively gentle benevolent gods who did not involve themselves in mortal affairs, instead spending most of their time hidden in the underworld. They judged individuals after death based on their individual actions, and then rewarded/punished them accordingly in a completely impartial and just way.

I don't know any leading Siderealist (Fagan included) who regards/regarded Pluto as some kind of ramped up Mars. Fagan was quite the opposite, in fact: He described Pluto angularity and luminary aspects as bringing about the gentlest of behaviors unless the Pluto were afflicted.

Tropicalists, on the other hand, have long considered Pluto the "higher octave" of Mars, and I know you still immerse yourself in Tropicalist communities. I suspect that's where you're getting this impression,

It isn't the marsy side of Aries that seems Plutonian to me - if necessary, that can all be explained as the constellation being RIm, solar, and anti-venereal. To me, the outstanding characteristics are that Aries is foremost a constellation of paradox, being hard to categorize in conventional either-or labels, emotionally and socially removed and isolative in a libertarian-0individualist sense, etc. None of that is martial which, if not simple, is at least straightforward and direct.

In Fagan's own words:

If Mars, as ruler of Scorpio, is the significator of passion, sport, contests, and heated arguments, Pluto is surely the planet of invasions, political upheavals, revolutions, liquidations, concentration camp and, in short, cold-blooded war.

If my impression is wrong, then I apologize, and I would like to be corrected.

Jove, you're picking bits and pieces out of the quote at the top of this thread (from Jan 1955 "Solunars" article in AA) trying to say that's Fagan's entire opinion of what Mars and Pluto represent. It's not. Read the whole quote. He's describing transits of other planets to Pluto. Mars is angry and hot-blooded. Pluto is cold blooded, and deadly, but not necessarily violent. What's the difference between invading a country and dropping a nuclear bomb on it? One is battles and fighting and blood under your fingernails. The other is intended to end the fighting.
That's very relevant to our current diplomatic situation. North Korea thinks it could survive nuclear war as a country and as a regime. It's trying to threaten Mars, and doesn't understand it's talking about Pluto.

Fagan compared and contrasted Mars and Pluto with Venus, from American Astrology “Solunars” March, 1958. This is not a direct comparison of Mars and Pluto, but it is interesting for the ways he creates sets of antonyms for for Venus-Mars and Venus-Pluto in semantic space.

Fagan wrote: As the reader will have noticed the P.S.S.R.s have so far demonstrated that deaths, departures, severance of ties and farewells have coincided with Pluto on one or other of the angles thus giving rise to the opinion that Pluto is the significator of termination, finality, the end. This opinion was considerably strengthened the other day when a friend of mine dismissed a servant who had proved to be a nuisance, on the day that his solar Pluto was precisely on the Midheaven of his P.S.S.R. Hence Pluto also emerges as the significator of riddance, deliverance, extrication, liberation, abolition, ejection, expulsion, eviction, discharge, voidance and clearance, …

As Venus is the significator of life, love, union, intercourse, attachment, wedlock, communion and coalescence, its influence is accordingly diametrically opposite to that of Pluto which supports the view that the latter's diurnal constellation is Aries and its nocturnal constellation Scorpio, which are diametrically opposite to Libra and Taurus respectively, the diurnal and nocturnal constellations of Venus. The influences of Pluto and Mars must not, however, be confounded. Pluto is not intrinsically a violent planet; it is just repellent. Mars on the other hand is violent, but not necessarily repellent. It will slaughter for food or indulge in contests which are forms of attraction and attachment. To repel commonly connotes dislike, if not hatred, and in that respect Pluto may be deemed a malefic and a rebel. In other respects, Pluto's severing, ridding, cancelling action can be life's greatest blessing.

This is the only instance I have found (so far) where Fagan tried to tease out distinctions between diurnal and nocturnal expressions of signs or planets. Fagan's interpretations are agreeable with the understandings of planetary sect: that diurnal planets act in ways that separate, and nocturnal planets tend toward community. (Venus and Mars are both of the nocturnal sect, and require some sort of togetherness to act.) If we were to place Pluto in this scheme, it would be a diurnal planet.

Jim Eshelman wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:14 am At one point, Fagan speculated that the solar and lunar rulership cycles (emanating two directions outward from Cancer-Leo) gave separate rulership schemes for Sun and Moon in the signs.

I can trace this sort of scheme back to issues of American Astrology in the 1930's as astrologers struggled to fit Pluto into the traditional rulership pattern. By the time you and I, Mr. E., became involved with astrology, Tropical schools had settled on the Pluto-Scorpio rulership. Fagan seemed to be the only astrologer who continued to put forward this pattern into the 1960's. Even when he proposed it, however, he always hedged the presentation with a disclaimer that it was the sort of schematism of which he was suspicious.

Yes I was being schematic in logic. My mother is very Arian, and my ex girlfriend whom I still see now and again. And I really do see the Plutonian paradox in them. My ex is actually quite gentle for the most part, and she deals with problems internally. She works through issues inside, then writes about them. She has a difficult time confronting people directly. She keeps secrets too. She makes plans but always changes them to an earlier time or day, but keeps them always. She is very loyal (Leo moon?) She has mercury rising. Born May 9 1992 11:11p.

DDonovanKinsolving wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:49 pm

Jim Eshelman wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:14 am At one point, Fagan speculated that the solar and lunar rulership cycles (emanating two directions outward from Cancer-Leo) gave separate rulership schemes for Sun and Moon in the signs.

I can trace this sort of scheme back to issues of American Astrology in the 1930's as astrologers struggled to fit Pluto into the traditional rulership pattern. By the time you and I, Mr. E., became involved with astrology, Tropical schools had settled on the Pluto-Scorpio rulership. Fagan seemed to be the only astrologer who continued to put forward this pattern into the 1960's. Even when he proposed it, however, he always hedged the presentation with a disclaimer that it was the sort of schematism of which he was suspicious.

I find the Tropical Pluto-Scorpio rulership odd, since most of those "Scorpios" are Libras, where Pluto is in detriment. (If we take Pluto to rule Aries beyond a reasonable doubt.)

I currently stand with the Pluto ruling the moon in Scorpio theory. It sounds the most likely, especially if you extend it to Pluto (more likely) rules feminine planets in Scorpio, I.e. Venus and the moon, and mars rules Scorpios masculine planets ie Mars and Saturn.

I also believe that Pluto is more likely to generally rule Scorpio if the Native is born before sunrise (and after sunset), and Mars rules if the native was born after sunrise (and before sunset).

Mars masculine rulership
Pluto feminine rulership

There are other factors like if Mars is in Scorpio or if Pluto is at a blocking aspect or place that would change this.

The opposite could then go for Aries maybe? Or maybe Pluto has no power in Aries again the God of War ruling the sign of war is hard to change...

What if you have Venus conjunct Mars? Does that render Scorpio hermaphroditic?

Also nocturnal/diurnal ≠ feminine/masculine.

No in that case Venus would be ruled by Mars. Especially because for a good conj. Mars would most likely be in the same sign as Venus.

So I revoke the night/day=female/male and will stick with the night/day=Pluto/Mars. Wonder if people born at night go by there Moon sign? (Of course many other people go by there strongest sign so this wouldn't be absurd).

I think I'm leaning toward Sunrise/Sunset instead of am/pm in astrology as measurements of might and day...

P.S. the moon spends equal time above the horizon during the day.

Reviving this thread because it's on topic (and also enjoying the Fagan quote at the top)...

I am currently working on the final rewrite of Pluto Foreground. Never before have I been so powerful persuaded that Pluto "rule4s" (i.e., shares primary characteristics with) Aries.

It's strange that words meaning much the same thing will still take our minds down different paths. In the whole history of Sidereal astrology, except for a buried and often forgotten paragraph like the one above, there is no history of Pluto descriptions resembling Aries descriptions. I'm not realizing, though, that this is because different words with different shades of meaning were used in each case.

As I dig through my list of Pluto angular people, I'm seeing it more and more like a near match for Aries (minus the solar and Rim features). Or, as I said it to my wife this morning, "I'm starting to see Pluto as exactly like Aries - minus the ego parts."

What got me here? As I have for every other planet, I started preloading the ruled signs' traits as possible behaviors. For example, for Neptune Foreground I preloaded Sun in Pisces traits to compare against my lists of angular Neptune people. I found a lot that fit, and that I'd simply never thought to write down about Neptune. Same for the other planets. This let me flesh out the interpretations better.

So, as I started working on Pluto, I preloaded Sun in Aries traits for comparison to my foreground Pluto lists. Boy, what a surprise! There is so much that fits as if it were first written for Pluto - just using different words than I normally applied. I haven't finished the process yet, and this could all change (and certainly will be rewritten before I'm done), but here are some things that started as Sun in Aries traits that seem like descriptions of Pluto people:

• Express opinions unhesitantly, honestly, and frequently without mincing words.
• Revel in their nonconformity. Capricious.
• Need to be free from arbitrary or incompetent control or restriction.
• Inherently contradictory or contrary. Oppositional. Does not want to be defined, limited, curtailed, or corralled. Seeks liberty without external constraint.
• Commonly lacks capacity for empathy: Insensitive or inattentive to the feelings or moods of others. [Not quite right for Pluto, but one could superficially think so.]

Similarly, who that knows Aries folks could miss their match of the most obvious Pluto traits? Pulling a few lines from my current Pluto notes (all subject to rewrite as the project continues):

• Needs to live their life by their own rules, genuinely and true to themselves.
• Adaptation to social and psychological habitats and expectations is abhorrent to them.
• Intense individuality, a setting of oneself apart from the common throng in the antisocial sense of to hell with it all.
• Unique, often cantankerous individuals who refuse to melt into the mire of custom.
• A WHOLE LOT of not following the rules!
• Agnostic because they attach themselves to no formal faith yet with spiritual understanding.

I even attribute Pluto to the phrase: black SHEEP! (I'd missed that until now LOL.)

Sure, it's not a one-for-one match. These differences seem linked to solar or (especially) Rim traits in Aries. Pluto types are inherently non-aggressive, non-invasive (despite Fagan's strong invasion metaphors above). Though there is a kind of Venus-Pluto polarity, Pluto isn't as inherently anti-Venus as Aries, which perhaps allows the essential gentleness of so many Pluto angular types. The Rim part of Aries is surely what makes it only minimally introspective, in contrast to foreground Pluto which often is deeply introspective.

Thought I'd stir the waters with these and capture a mid of where I am mid-project on evolving Pluto ideas or, at least, language about them.