Solunars by Aldebaran Sidereal Academy

Spica was the first ongoing journal devoted to Sidereal astrology research, education, and general exploration, edited and published by Sidereal pioneer (and significant historic figure in his own right) Brigadier R.C. Firebrace four times a year from October 1961 until his death in 1974.

Nearly all the issues are now available for you to download thanks to the generosity of a couple of friends of Solunars.com:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ansnmu2xbktam8Jt4GP ... w?e=nUiEcb

Three of the files at the top of this collection of files are tables of contents we've created - one that is chronological, one sorted by author, and one sorted by article names.

Please note: After Brig. Firebrace's death, Spica was bought by two of my friends, Karen Wilkerson and Joan Piszek. (I lived with Joan and her family for a few months when I was 20.) It's their personal property. Before the pandemic lockdown, I had opened discussion with with Karen's family to obtain full rights to distribute this. The lockdown interrupted some of that. At present, I'm making these issues available under the "fair use" copyright doctrine in a way that is respectful of the estate's rights.

Spica was extraordinary! I only came to know it from 1970 (the last third of its run), though I later had the chance to read the entire run of issues a couple of times. It is hard to convey the excitement of a new issue arriving in the mail from London during my high school years. They were always filled with something remarkable. Much of the work of developing and unfolding Sidereal astrology occurred in its pages, just as it did in the "Solunars" series by Cyril Fagan and the writings of Garth Allen - all of these being long out of print.

Spica had articles by early Siderealists including Cyril Fagan, Garth Allen, R.C. Firebrace, Rupert Gleadow, Carl Stahl, Sri Rajagopala Iyer, K.M. Kharegat, Richard Murakami, Arthur Musselwhite, Martin Harvey, and Rick Ostrander; innovators like Helen Boyd, Frances Littlejohn, Nelson Page, and Dr. Margaret Millard; as well as other eminent astrologers of the time, such as Charles Carter, Ronald Davison, Dennis Elwell, Edward Lyndoe, John Addey, Alexander Marr, and Joseph Goodavage. (As far as I'm concerned you can ignore the articles by the 16-year-old writer who had the same name as me . He was young!)

I believe our making this 14-year body of work available is entirely in the spirit of Brigadier Firebrace, who was a friend and mentor. You can read a collection of his letters to me here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3231

In my book Pearls of Wisdom, when discussing the history of my own journal, Black Pearl, in the Preface, I wrote the following about Roy Firebrace and Spica. It may be informative on its own or, at least, a reflection of some of the influence he had on me.

“Seek the New in the Old ~ Seek the Old in the New”
As a motto for BLACK PEARL, I selected the phrase, “Seek the New in the Old ~ Seek the Old in the New.” A personal story lies behind this selection, the story of how I was inspired by one of the most interesting men I have ever known, Brigadier R.C. Firebrace, Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.

History remembers Roy Firebrace best for his prominent role in World War II. One of England’s highest-ranking soldiers, he headed the British military mission in Moscow and served as Churchill’s Russian translator at Yalta and Potsdam. However, I first encountered him due to the astrological quarterly Spica that he edited and published after his retirement from the military. As a teen, I was quite impressed by the dedication with which he turned this out almost single-handedly to a small but world-spanning audience – not for recognition or wealth, but out of dedication to truth. (This spark of admiration rekindled in me when I met Soror Meral, who was doing the same thing with IN THE CONTINUUM.)

In July 1972 [sic: it was 1971], when I was 16, my first professional writings were published: Two articles appeared simultaneously on opposite sides of the Atlantic. One was in American Astrology Magazine. The other was in Spica. Roy Firebrace took an interest in this teen who, despite needing a lot (a lot!) of maturing and polishing, had begun to find his voice. A warm, valued correspondence began, which lasted for several years until I left home for college and its consequent distractions. He died soon after, in November 1974.

Roy selected for Spica the motto, “Seek the New in the Old.” He said it was an old Chinese aphorism. It meant much to him in his exploration of new frontiers in the most ancient roots of a very ancient science.

When I began to plan BLACK PEARL in 1995-96 (after Phyllis told me she would be winding down ITC), I knew I wanted to use Spica’s motto and its complement as a central theme of the new journal. Part of my motivation was that Roy’s dedication in turning out Spica fueled my own ideals for BLACK PEARL 25 years later. More importantly, I could think of no phrases more representative of the spirit I wanted to convey with BLACK PEARL.

I wanted both to seek the new in the old, and to seek the old in the new... I sought to build on the past – neither to dismiss it, nor merely to echo it...

Good to see these Spica issues now linked to the forum. Now, if we could only get all the Sidereal Astrology articles from American Astrology Mag linked to the forum.

Thanks Jim!

SPICA is a valuable Sidereal Journal....Great contribution!.
I have a few of those issues, and some issues of the Siderealist & ROSA as well.

Sidereal Interpretation model is evolving all the time....we hope!
But the basics remain the same. thank you Cyril Fagan.

I just read a most interesting Spica article on “The Beginning of The Aquarian Age” which was demonstrated with precision astronomical mathematics to be 1957, without any injustice to the precise boundaries of the Sidereal Zodiac done by the work of Fagan/Bradley.

Vol 11 # 4

This one Spica article was worth every penny of my support for this forum made possible by Jim.

SteveS wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2024 5:59 pm I just read a most interesting Spica article on “The Beginning of The Aquarian Age” which was demonstrated with precision astronomical mathematics to be 1957, without any injustice to the precise boundaries of the Sidereal Zodiac done by the work of Fagan/Bradley.

Vol 11 # 4

This one Spica article was worth every penny of my support for this forum made possible by Jim.

I'm glad you enjoyed it and feel gratified

This date, though, has no relationship to the bounds of Sidereal Aquarius. - I'll try to reread it tomorrow to see if I have anything more concrete I can add. - Page 1815 of the full PDF.

Thanks Jim, it was difficult for me to understand exactly what the author was doing with his methodology, but I figured Firebrace would not have published this article if he had not checked the math used for the methodology. It is obvious to me the so-called age of Aquarius has been going on (started) for years in full force, and this article is the only one that I have read that explains why it started before the actual beginning of the Precessional Age of Aquarius which begins at 30 degrees Aquarius in 2376 AD according to the great Sidereal work done by Fagan/Bradley.

SteveS wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2024 8:09 am Thanks Jim, it was difficult for me to understand exactly what the author was doing with his methodology

That's utterly fair and understandable. Almost nobody would understand what he was saying. (I hadn't read it in decades and reread most of it this morning - I barely understood it without going forward and backward a lot.) You have to understand the methods he uses (the Topocentric house system) and his view of the theory behind it. You then have to trace word for word his astronomical arguments and follow the logic.

I have to admit up front that I'm not a fan of Polich's writings. Even allowing some leeway because his articles are translations from Spanish, he always seems to use sloppy logic at best. Nonetheless, I long ago read his book on the whole system (though I can't promise my retention is perfect at this point; in fact, I'm sure it's not) and I can follow (slowly, tediously what he says at the front). I remember the first time I read this article (when the issue came out) being dazzled by the Sputnik thing until I actually went back and forced myself to understand what he was saying.

So... first... allowing him the most leeway... we have to start by remembering that the Aquarius Age is that period of time when the vernal point is in Aquarius. The only meaningful "Aquarius" is Siderereal Aquarius. Barring a shift in Earth's axis, there is no doubt at all when the vernal point will be in Sidereal Aquarius. It's a certainty. - In fact, it's what Polich calls the astronomical definition of the Age of Aquarius.

Anyone can define any other sort of "era" they want but if it is not EXACTLY the time the vernal equinox is in Aquarius, it's not the thing that has always been called "Aquarian Age." If you want to define it differently, just call it something else and don't confuse people. Tropical astrologers have always had a problem defining the Aquarius Age because they first need an "Aquarius" that is something other than the Tropical Aquarius they recognize

So... giving Polich maximum benefit of the doubt... he is pursuing something else that is NOT what has always been meant by the Aquarian Age. Fine. For the moment I'll call it the Polich Era.

BTW, if I were to carefully address this article, it would take me days, or maybe weeks, to inch my way through. (I'm not going to do that, of course.) I mention this just because a lot of what I'll say below is simplistic. I tried to find key "trigger points."

The first thing I should mention, then, is that Poli h made numerous factual errors in his astronomical statements in the early pages. They're just wrong. It would take an entire morning to list them and say why they're wrong. He just doesn't have correct information and concepts about many areas of astronomy on which he writes. This is unfortunate for the case he is making: He actually doesn't need much of this to make his case so it has the impression of just being a smoke screen of unrelated (wrong) facts.

Part of his argument that I think probably IS relevant, though, is that he insists on the legitimacy of the Tropical zodiac. I dispute this completely: There is no legitimacy of any kind to the Tropical zodiac as a zodiac. -- This insistence sets up his conclusion that there was something magical in 220 AD when "the two zodiacs matched." There are not two zodiacs, and they didn't "match"; rather, the Tropical zodiac that was barely thought through at the time started from one or another place near the start of the real (i.e., Sidereal Aries) and, therefore, was given its name. - Unless you accept that there are two zodiacs working independently, that they preexisted the last two thousand years in some way that makes their "convergence" (sic) in 220 magical and special, then one of Polich's basic premises fails and his whole argument fails.

As an aside, he makes the astonishing claim that the Sidereal zodiac refers only to inorganic things, and only the Tropical zodiac refers to organic (living) things (like humans). His argument for the Polich Era (his pseudo-Aquarius Age) is that Garth Allen correctly identified the one that pertains to inorganic phenomena on Earth but we need find the other one that refers to people.

(Stopping to catch my breath.)

I was going to write out a summary of his thesis. I'm certain I can't do this in a short space (and might leave out something important.) I'll settle for this: It has nothing AT ALL to do with any equinoctial point being in anything that anyone calls Aquarius.

but I figured Firebrace would not have published this article if he had not checked the math used for the methodology.

Roy liked to publish new ideas and give them a chance to find life. He published a lot of stuff he wasn't sure about himself. If you read Roy's editorial a few pages earlier, he essentially says that i this case. At the end of that, he says:

I must say, however, that on one point I find myself in disagreement with Polich. He favours two zodiacs and gives his reasons for this. Personally, as my readers know, I can find no reason for advocating two zodiacs, one is enough for me, and ihat one is the sidereal. However, if I claim freedom for myself in choice of zodiacs I must and do give freedom to others to use the zodiac of their choice.

It is obvious to me the so-called age of Aquarius has been going on (started) for years in full force, and this article is the only one that I have read that explains why it started before the actual beginning of the Precessional Age of Aquarius which begins at 30 degrees Aquarius in 2376 AD according to the great Sidereal work done by Fagan/Bradley.

It's not obvious to me as it is to you. Despite the brief hint during the mid-to-late '60s that we might be moving into such a space, as an Aquarian I think that little about the world in which we live is Aquarian in values and orientation at all, while the way we go about things remains painfully Piscian.

Anyway, this is part of the beauty of Spica. It was always on the edge, toying with new things while standing firmly as a creative voice of Sideral astrology.

The article Polich was answering is "What's All This About the Age of Aquarius" by Garth Allen in Spica Vol. IX, No. 3. this is on page 1,538 of the PDF that has all the issues in it.

Thanks Jim, I now understand much better the context of the article, but I am not sure I understand why Firebrace allowed articles in his Spica which he disagreed with their methodology. And yes, I agree with you there is much of the Piscean Age still happening but at same time new impulses of the Aquarian Age happening. My God---the changes in Tech which has happened in just the last 50 years—unbelievable when we compare back to just 200 years of history. Anyway, thanks for your clarification.

He was producing a magazine and wanted to encourage original thought. Publishing the article wasn't an endorsement of its conclusions.

I understand Jim, I found the article most interesting but did not understand the methodology the author of the article was using. I suspect Firebrace thought the same since he never commented on the article.