Showing posts with label Planet "Z". Show all posts
Showing posts with label Planet "Z". Show all posts

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Gemini and Planet "Z"


Carl Payne Tobey (1902-1980) was one of the few astrologers who strove to validate his astrological claims via dedicated research. Today's post relates to something I noticed when glancing through what he had to say about zodiac sign Gemini in his book Astrology of Inner Space. He was also a mathematician, and sometimes described as an iconoclast - a person who criticizes or opposes widely accepted beliefs and practices. That characteristic originally drew me to his writings. One of his proposals, or speculations, was that, because the ancient system of two "rulers" per zodiac sign didn't sit well with him, in his estimation two planets beyond Pluto - he called them "Y" and "Z" - could provide single "rulerships" for Taurus and Gemini, the two zodiac signs still sharing "rulers", with Libra and Virgo respectively. I'm putting inverted commas around "ruler" because I'm not sure it gives us the exact idea we ought to have. I think it was Robert Hand who once wrote that "ruler" in this context has more to do with the foot-rule kind of ruler than a king or dictator.

Tobey's feelings about "Z" and Gemini began to surface when he noticed that some clients he refers to as "Gemini people" were often mistaken by him as "Pisces people". He kept noticing a definite "compassionate side" in them, something he didn't easily associate with the sign Gemini. I assume he was referring to Sun signs Gemini and Pisces, which leads to my initial wariness of his proposal.

The author goes into too much detail to copy here, but suffice to say that he came to the conclusion that perhaps the true "ruler" or "co-ruler" of Gemini is "Z" - out there in the far distant reaches of our galaxy. He speculated that "Z" could have been in the Watery sign of Pisces at the time he and most of his clients with this puzzling Gemini/Pisces flavour came into the world. "Geminis of my own age seemed very definitely to have the necessary Pisces characteristics."

Tobey then proceeded to take notes about persons born in different years and deduced that by the mid 1960s "Z" must have been close to the end of Pisces, about to enter Aries. He had worked on his file of notes for 30 years, but hadn't mentioned his work on it to others. He then began seeing things in his client "Gemini people" he didn't recognise - again : a restlessness professionally, in marriage, and in many areas of life.
As he ends the chapter :
"The data suggests the possibility that "Z" is not too far into Aries as this is written (early 1970s), and that it will be in Aries for the rest of most people's lives. If so, all the new Geminis born after the late 1960s will be an entirely different breed, will be pioneers, and will use their talents in an entirely new way.
This is highly speculative but will give students something to study and test........."
I half like Carl Payne Tobey's theory, and most of his writings in general, yet as already said, I balk at this "Geminis" label. What immediately sprang to mind as I read chapter XIII was that many people with Sun in Gemini have planets (especially Mercury and/or Venus) in the adjoining sign, Cancer. Cancer, with its emotional sensitivities could be mistaken for a "Pisces feel" could it not? Perhaps Mr Tobey cross-checked the natal charts of his clients for this possibility, and others, such as Moon in a Water sign or Water sign rising or a cluster of planets in a Water sign - but if so, it isn't mentioned in his book.

I'm not sure what to think about "rulerships", there's a recent related post, Ruling Principles, on the topic. Although the two signs per "ruler" thing seemed rather too convenient, it did work most of the time, possibly due to the elemental factor: Aries the Fire/Cardinal side of Mars, Scorpio the Water/Fixed side; Taurus the Earth/Fixed side of Venus, Libra the Airy/Cardinal side, Capricorn the Earth/Cardinal side of Saturn, Aquarius the Airy/Fixed side...etc etc etc. If planets discovered in more modern times were interpreted only when in aspect to personal planets (any of them), things might have remained somewhat clearer, and possibly more reliable. Astrologers will be astrologers, they do love to play around with the pieces, and that's not always a bad thing.


Illustration of astrologer is by Scott Gustafson


(References to Carl Payne Tobey in past posts can be accessed via clicking on his name in my sidebar.)


Any copyrighted material on these pages is included as "fair use", for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis only, and will be removed at the request of copyright owner(s).