Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

Is there an intrinsic conflict between happiness and achievement? I think there is not, though I also don't think they are by any means the same thing. (I think the odds of someone being broadly happy in their lives is almost exactly as likely for people of little outward achievement as people of great outward achievement.)

I bring this up because the history of astrology's conversation on aspect types over the last eighty years (from the 1930s and '40s on, especially) has tended to polarize these ideas, so I thought I'd raise the conversation. Also (and perhaps this was my original motive), it provides an introduction to another passage from Charles Carter's "Introduction" in his book Astrological Aspects.

For those not so familiar with the history of thought on aspects, from around the 1890s onward (and to a lesser extent from Medieval times forward), the Western astrological paradigm treated oppositions and squares (etc.) as intrinsically bad (malefic, inharmonious, etc.) and trines and sextiles (etc.) as intrinsically good (benefic, harmonious, etc.), the conjunction being "neutral" or capable of going either way. This marked the majority of 20th Century astrology books and still persists in many quarters because of that legacy, so much that I've tended to think of it as the typical Tropical astrology view of aspects - not that there is anything zodiac related about it, but from the culture of Tropical astrology.

But Tropical astrologers were as instrumental in breaking this idea as were Siderealists. This was a trend of the more progressive leaders beginning in the 1940s especially. Cyril Fagan was one of those leaders, so it became the typical view in the Sidereal school of astrology that the nature of the planets mattered more than the nature of the aspect. In Bradley's Solar and Lunar Returns, written in the late '40s, you can see, especially in the discussion of Sun and Moon aspects, a tendency to regard trines and sextiles as softer but of the same general type and character of the oppositions and squares. Concurrently, Reinhold Ebertin's group in Germany, busy rebranding astrology as Cosmobiology, took exactly the same position, stating in the Introduction to his book The Combination of Stellar Influences,

Ebertin wrote:The signifying symbols + and - have been chosen purposely in order to avoid the terms "favourable" and "unfavourable", the use of which is becoming more and more obsolete in modern astrology. Hitherto, squares and oppositions have been termed unfavourable and sextiles and trines favourable. However, experience has shown that such a usage is not always correct.

I have attempted repeatedly to explain the difference in such a way that sextiles and trines represent a state of things, whereas squares and oppositions signify an action or an event. [Walter] KOCH says quite rightly that in modern scientific astrology all aspects must be considered equal but only that their potency or effect may be stronger or weaker as the case may be. He prefers a division into "soft" (sextile, trine) and "hard" (square, opposition) aspects.

Partly, Ebertin's view (and Koch's view) were influenced by similar thinking decades earlier by Alfred Witte, who must be considered an outlier astrological genius-innovator of his time, though Ebertin really anchored it. Ebertin, Fagan - and, as we shall see next, Charles Carter - paved the way on this new view of aspect types and, aside from the small percentage who outright adopted them, other astrologers at least started softening their view, not so much changing how they spoke of the aspects as changing how they spoke about people and challenges, e.g., (I simplify) still regarding squares as challenging obstacles but, more or less, reminding us that "obstacles are good for you." These different threads have wandered down the decades from especially the '70s forward and have given us the tapestry of Western astrological views we have today, in which Siderealists still stand on the radical edge. (It's just less radical an edge than it used to be.)

Fagan and Ebertin, while highly respected by their peers, were definitely seen as radicals. Both were openly out to remake astrology in non-trivial ways, to reinvent it from the ground up. This always makes one a bit more suspicious to the crowd than equally respected people who stay in the mainstream. But, planted right in the middle of the mainstream, at the heart of mainstream astrology, was one of the most respected voices of all, Britain's "dean of astrology," Charles E.O. Carter... and, in an important book on interpreting astrological aspects, he came forward with substantially the same view, but framed more in the language of the mainstream and tradition, and therefore more easily comprehensible to most of his readers. I don't have much of Fagan's Tropical writings (or his thoughts earlier than 1944), and I recognize that Ebertin was influenced by Witte, but - those possible exceptions acknowledged, Carter may have been the first major voice to drive this new perspective home.

Here is a long excerpt from Carter's 1930 "Introduction." I don't endorse every word but, when you shake out the author-choices, I eventually agree with most of it. At the moment, besides sharing this long quote I'm also reflective on meta-communications in his words and wondering what assumptions, considerations, and definitions implicit in his writings might have driven the aspect conversation in the intervening decades and whether we have unconsciously accepted assumptions that aren't necessarily true. In any case, here is a lovely radicalism from one of Britain's gentlest (while most brilliant) astrological souls.

Charles E.O. Carter wrote:It must be noted that any configuration may be considered good or bad from two points of view - happiness and achievement. The benefic planets and aspects undoubtedly are most favourable to the former, but they are by no means good for success or attainment, in and by themselves, since they incline to tranquil and uneventful conditions and the less noble alternative of the "Choice of Herakles." On the other hand, a horoscope almost entirely dominated by the malefic planets and by inharmonious aspects will, as a rule, break the native through repeated obstacles and misfortunes. Hence, for achievement, a mixed map is best, affording both opportunity and incentive. Inharmonious aspects cause misfortunes, but they do not forbid success,whereas a natus of good aspects (such as that of the Buddhist Prince who became a monk, Notable Nativities, No. 178) indicates a shrinking from mundane responsibilities.

However, harmonious aspects to not denote slackness or indolence unless they pervade the whole map, and even then the prominence of vigorous planets, such as Mars or Uranus, will prevent this effect, for then the necessary energy will come from the planet, though not from the aspect. It stands to reason that, since to achieve anything notable is ex hypothesi difficult, the map of the man who does this must contain difficult elements; and as a rule we shall more often find in such cases Sun opposition Saturn, than Sun trine Jupiter. Most often we shall see a blend of both classes.

Unless the reader can see this point of view and to some extent accept it, he will find much that follows [in the book to which this is Introduction] to be rubbish, for in compiling this book I have sometimes found that inharmonious contacts between certain planets are not more noticeably worse, so far as success in true character go, than are the harmonious. I cannot carry on the old tradition that Saturnine afflictions mean worldly downfall and failures when I see such men as W.T. Stead and Lord Northcliffe with the Lights in opposition and Saturn in square to both. And, without postulating that either was wholly wise or good, I cannot see that they were particularly censurable in point of character. Hence I have tried to find what these configurations commonly do mean, as distinct from what they are said to mean.

I must frankly say that I doubt if anything has done sane Astrology more harm than or constant prating about "good" and "bad" aspects, like children talking of "lovely sweets" and "nasty medicine." Such a point of view is debilitating and unworthy, and it implies that astrologers are people whose chief concern in life is to find ease and comfort and avoid hardships. I do not mean that astrologers are of this frame of mind, but our language leads others to this conclusion. We must indeed employ the terms of ordinary language, but there is no need to speak as if comfort were the one good thing, and discomfort the one evil.

It will be noticed that I have usually found more to say about the inharmonious aspects than about the harmonious ones; this is not due to ant perverse preference for the former, but to the fact that these have more affinity with materiality and therefore manifest themselves more clearly and perceptibly.

Fascinating, thank you!

I like this a lot. I feel like I've been shifting into this attitude lately.

Although the above makes my initial point complete, and the following is a digression from the initial point of the thread, there are some other very valuable paragraphs in the introduction, from both a practical and historical perspective. Here is some more of Carter.

It will be noticed that the aspects are treated in each case more or less distinctly from two points of view - the interior or psychological, and the external or circumstantial. It is a matter of great technical difficulty to decide in which way any given aspect will mainly operate in a particular case. Some - perhaps all - work in terms of character, while the external results are perhaps secondary. I do not know. Often the character-effect is very difficult to find, while the external results are obvious. In one case such an aspect as Sun square Jupiter may indicate a double nature, whereas in another the native is straightforward, and the aspect causes him to be the victim of the duplicity of another. Some aspects appear to operate entirely in terms of health or accidents...

For my own part I may say (though this book is intended to be practical and by no means philosophical or mystical) I find that the only satisfying belief is, that environment is a reflection of the Inner, either as it is or was, so that, though an aspect may seem quite foreign to our character and only appropriate to our external conditions, in reality both correspond. It is of course obvious that our characters ma change much more quickly than our bodies and circumstances, so that the correspondence is seldom perfect or complete; but in a general sense the one follows the other. As within, so without. I know that many astrologers detest what they consider to be "mystical"; but I see no other rational explanation of facts.

A little later, he cites something that I actually thought I first articulated (though it's silly to think that one modern person "first articulated" any basic observation about how we work). This point is a very big deal:

Astrologers, in seeking to understand and help, must understand the Law of Expression, by which all beings seek to express their own natures through all available channels. The work of the astrologer is to find beneficial and appropriate media through which the horoscopic forces can be expressed. These forces cannot be escaped, but they can be analysed, understood, and directed.

Charles E. O. Carter, one of the midwives of Sidereal astrology. The 10:55 PM time is as given (he rectified it to 6 minutes later).

January 31, 1887, 10:55 PM GMT, Parkstone, UK

Charles book "Principles of Astrology' was the first astrology book I read, he laid a solid foundation for me with continuing studies of Astrology. And to contemplate: If it had not been Carter's causal remark to Bradley about ingresses in the Sidereal Z, we probably would never had Bradley's discoveries and rectification of the equal 30 degree divisions of the Sidereal Z with his brilliant work into cardinal ingresses in the Sidereal Z. Nor would we have had your brilliant continuing work with Sidereal Mundane Astrology.

I speak of him as a midwife of Sidereal astrology because of his broad support for Fagan and Bradley's "honest research" approach, including his challenge on ingresses that you mention. In the 1963 5th edition of Principles, which was intended to be a non-controversial book, he nonetheless took time (about a third of his new Foreword) to say,

For instance, there is a not inconsiderable school of "sidereal" astrology, employing the zodiac of the constellations in place of the tropical or equinoctial circle.

Such things were hardly known in the West in 1925 when this text-book first appeared and it is best to refer any that may be interested in such developments to works that deal specifically with them. To treat them briefly and inadequately would be unfair from all points of view.

Gary Duncan told me that Carter fully adopted the Sidereal zodiac at the end of his life, but not in public. I have no confirmation of this other than Gary's statement, which I presumed came from letters from Carter to him or Fagan or Bradley.

Jim wrote:

Gary Duncan told me that Carter fully adopted the Sidereal zodiac at the end of his life, but not in public.

Most interesting. I can understand why ‘not in public,’ his colleagues would have probably abandoned him. This makes me wonder if Carter studied Bradley’s work on Sidereal Z ingresses with Bradley’s 3 monthly AA articles in 1957. If so, this would have had to convert Carter to the Sidereal Z, because Carter believed in the value of the Winter Solstice chart as a reliable mundane chart. If Carter compared Bradley’s mundane work with Capsolar charts to Winter Solstice charts, this may have been the main reason Carter privately switched to the Sidereal Z. But, we will never know the truth of this matter.

SteveS wrote: Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:45 am This makes me wonder if Carter studied Bradley’s work on Sidereal Z ingresses with Bradley’s 3 monthly AA articles in 1957.

I'm sure. They were certainly sent to him. I'd actually be surprised if advanced copies of the report weren't mailed to him, that's the kind of thing Don would have done.

I know this Jim: Before I came into contact with you and your forum, I did a-lot of work with your colleague Matthew Quellas (RIP), and asked him what he considered collectedly the most overlooked part of Sidereal Astrology, and he told me the mundane astrology work Bradley did with cardinal ingresses in the Sidereal Z. When Matthew told me this, I tried my best to purchase all the American Astrology Mag from 1953 to 1971, mainly to get Bradley's discovery with mundane astrology with his AA articles, I was not able to purchase these AA issues. Luckily you came along with your solunars forum and taught in a detailed manner what I wanted to learn with Bradley's mundane work with cardinal ingresses in the SZ.

CEO Carter wrote: I have sometimes found that inharmonious contacts between certain planets are not more noticeably worse, so far as success in true character go, than are the harmonious. I cannot carry on the old tradition that Saturnine afflictions mean worldly downfall and failures when I see such men as W.T. Stead and Lord Northcliffe with the Lights in opposition and Saturn in square to both. And, without postulating that either was wholly wise or good, I cannot see that they were particularly censurable in point of character.

I thought I would search for more modern or familiar examples. In my catalogue of almost a thousand eminent people, I filtered out those who had close (Class 1) ecliptical or mundane conjunctions, oppositions, or squares of Moon-Sun, Moon-Saturn, and Sun-Saturn. There is quite a mix of respected figures and a couple of disreputable ones, quite a lot of success (but that's a bias of the data set), and, in many cases, a significant amount of power. Here is the list:

Alexander Graham Bell, Emperor Franz Joseph, Havelock Ellis, Jimmy Hoffa, Johann Muller (Regiomontanus), Lucky Luciano, Martin Sheen, Philip K. Dick

Of these eight, five had the configuration foreground: Alexander Graham Bell, Havelock Ellis, Jimmy Hoffa, Lucky Luciano, Martin Sheen

The opposite extreme - considering the views Carter was challenging - would involve soft aspects and soft (benefic) planets, especially Jupiter. I filtered for charts with close trines or sextiles connecting Moon, Sun, and Jupiter to each other. (These are all ecliptical aspects, since I don't track mundane soft aspects.) This produced five examples and I'm not sure what I can find in common with them (except that the three men are known as very deep thinkers). None except the last was famous before the public like many in the last list, yet I don't know that they were lazy or overly "soft." I do suspect that they all had a strong sense of play. None had any of Moon, Sun, or Jupiter foreground except for Fagan's angular Sun. They are:

Buckminster Fuller, Candy Barr, Cyril Fagan, Joseph Campbell, LeAnn Rimes

I do believe that I have a mundane Saturn Moon opposition.
To the outside world, by society standards I am probably considered a complete failure and a great disappointment. I dont feel like a failure and I'm not disappointed in my life, I feel like a giant secret success actually.
I may not have degrees or training to get career jobs, but I'm kind and helpful and I show up and try my best. I feel like I could give a go at just about any job and get the work done if given proper instructions, but more importantly I am innerly happy with myself and my world and that's real success and wealth.