"Systemry & Cancer" (Garth Allen)

[Jim Eshelman]

(From "Your Powwow Corner," American Astrology, November 1956)

At this writing in July 1956 the cultural circles of the world are celebrating the 350th anniversary of the birth of the great painter Rembrandt. Time magazine's art section is currently running a special memorial to the immortal Dutch artist, with color reproductions of man of his masterpieces, in a feature entitled, "Master of Light and Shadow." It had been Cancer-born Rembrandt who introduced to creative painting the technique of using light and darkness as though they were pigments.

Because Sidereal Cancerians play a big role in my personal life (my mother, my closest friend and longest-lived friendship, my worst enemy, and the dog my relatives left me to take care of by way of example), I am particularly fascinated by their unique zodiac endowed traits and idiosyncrasies. Every constellation is an intriguing study to me and I've never been able to decide which is my favorite to talk about, to criticize and to love. Just the same, Cancerians capture my fancy more readily than do any of the others, including my very own personal horde of Taurus acquaintances. By writing some commentary about facets of the thoroughbred Cancer personality, I'm probably flirting with death as there are two such specimens looking over my shoulder.

Rembrandt's influence on art, his incomparable handling of shadow, points up an instinct in the Cancerian which is usually overlooked in a survey of zodiacal attributes. Wasn't it a Cancerian, the great Dr. Carl Jung, who introduced to psychology the term and concept of "the Shadow"? Another famed Cancerian of the dim past, the bibulous tent maker Omar Khayyam, reflected the spirit of this symbol in such musings as: "For in and out, above, about, below, 'tis nothing by a magic shadow-show, play'd in a box whose candle is the sun, round which we phantom figures come and go."

The shadow motif is discernible in typical Cancer natives in their manner of dress and choice of color schemes and interior decoration themes. They like lurid colors and contrasting dark tones. Nowadays brightly colored rouged cheeks are not fashionable, but many Cancer women appear to be reluctant to part with the custom of a couple of decades back. It's not that they are garish; it's just that Cancerians are the giltingest lily gilters of all, and never seem able to leave anything As Is. They are inveterate furniture rearrangers, knickknack devotees and dolly users. Costume-wise, many a Cancer woman feels naked without jewelry and eye-catching trinkets. A Cancer lady I know was once given a beautiful piece of driftwood as a gift; visitors to her home can now see an artificial canary and two colored tinfoil butterflies from the dime store perched on its twigs!

The shadow motif seldom stands out by itself, for it is one leg of a trinity of motifs which appear to have "design" as their common denominator. But the word "design" is still not adequate to imply exactly what is at the root of Cancerian compulsion. Maybe "chimerical-ness," awkward as it is, captures it more appropriately, in view of Cancer's inborn drive to both change and dramatic visual effect. Some time ago I settle on the word "systemry" as most descriptive although that still falls short.

An all-encompassing key for Cancer's foremost instinct is beyond "yours truly," and the closest approach in literature that I have run across is to borrow Oswald Spengler's concept of "the Magian soul" and apply it to this constellation. Spengler remarked that the Magian consciousness was blind to natural beauty like that of the human figure, as shown by the total absence of simple representations of forms and figures in Arabian and Egyptian art. Even animals were seldom depicted naturally in the stylized culture of the Near East, as though it were impossible for their artisans to appreciate anything As Is. On reading Spengler's analysis of different types of consciousness, it struck us how neatly much of his description of the Magian could be applied to Cancer. Spengler called "essentially Magian" such art forms as the intricate tapestry, the Persian rug, Arabesque and Oriental writing, and the gingerbread type of temple ornamentation. See what I'm getting at here in connection with Cancer?

For years we've carefully saved specimens of handwriting from correspondence of all kinds when the birth data of the writer was known. The most easily identifiable script is that of the true Cancerian - large and ornate capitals, swooping curlicues and often an extra flourish of the pen. Of course, not all fancy penmanship is of Cancer origin and all Cancerians are not loop and swirl addicts, but the Cancerian is naturally prone to embellish and augment, and this characteristic does stand out often enough to impress even the sorest head among astrology's skeptics.

Cancer is second only to Pisces in its production of melodramatic actors, playwrights and show producers, but there is a noticeable difference in the two types. Piscians love masquerading and dramatic illusions as something they can evoke and still remain themselves. Cancerians, however, fuse into the masquerade body and soul, merge into the illusion itself as a part of it. In other words we might say that Piscians love to pretend while Cancerians can forget themselves into being what they are striving to portray. The theatre, like the other plastic arts, is obviously an outlet for the shadow and garnishment motifs which are so much a part of the Cancerian soul. All the more so, too, because of the natural tendency toward gesticulation and emphatic speech which helps identify the Cancerian in a roomful of assorted people. In show biz circles Cancerians are forever accusing each other of being uncured hams. Cancerians are often fibbers and white-lie tellers, not through any innate streak of dishonesty, but because the sober truth usually seems too dull to pass along As Is. A man born on July 25th is the only one listed in "Who's Who" as a "professional story teller" - the best story tellers of our time from Ernest Hemmingway to Cecil B. DeMille, are Cancer natives.

Now about "systems and systemry" where Cancer is concerned. Cancer loves a mystery - not only to solve enigmas but to create them as well. Mata Hari, Raymond Chandler and Erlc Stanley Gardner, incidentally, are Cancer native of the "who-dunnit" strain. Perhaps this is why Cancer produces so many noted psychiatrists and analysts, examples being Karl Menninger, Felix Adler, Kathryn McHale and Carl Jung himself, no less. Again, the shadow motif is probably to the fore here because psychology is an excellent vent for those who love mysteries and the probing of the "dark corners of the mind."

As Cancerians are design and riddle conscious, they are utterly captivated by systmry of any sort, particularly the diagrammatic and mathematical kind. Needless to say, astrology fills this bill perfectly, what with its trappings of tables, charts, formulas, somewhat arcane language and aura of mystification to the outsider. It is amazing how often one runs into a Cancerian who has devised a horse racing system. As astrological students they can be tirelessly preoccupied for hours on end with some new mathematical gimmick they have discovered. Come to think of it, "tirelessness" can be included in a list of Cancer's traits. Cancer's written symbol, a pair of pincers, may well signify such persistence, which expresses itself in another way that is one of the constellations prize assets - a tenacious, often uncanny keen memory.

Systemry appears to be a basic psychological need of the Cancer ego. An observer can't help noticing a similarity between the mandala illustrations in the works of Dr. Jung and the architectural symbols for occult processes drafted by Claude Bragdon. Much the same goes for Ely Culbertson's illustrations of his famous bridge system, Max Heindel's diagrammed Cosmos, and pollster Elmo Roper's graphic methods. It is plain that Cancerian systemry can be as subjective as it can be objective, as witness the fact that the constellation is far and away the most fruitful producer of occult leaders and founders of mystical system, e.g., Mary Baker Eddy, Helena Blavatsky, Max Heindel, John Calvin, Dr. John Dee, Claude Bragdon, Count Herman Keyserling, Col. H.S. Olcott, Alan Leo, Swami Krishnananda, and many of the best known mediums.

The Magian drive finds many outlets in the weaving of symmetrical and "esoteric" tapestries intended to be pictorial solutions to the mysteries of the universe. It could only have been a Cancerian who could write an amazingly detailed Encyclopedia of Medical Astrology based purely in predicate thinking and fabricated systemry. Leave it to a Cancerian, the likes of G.G. Shaw, to insist upon the invention of a new English alphabet of 40 rather than 26 letters. Surely it had to be a Cancerian occultist who added three more "planes" to thye sevenfold cosmos of theosophy. A Taurean conceived the original Wizard of Oz but it took a Cancerian to pen the dozens of fabulous sequels which comprise the shelf of "Oz books" most of us remember so wistfully. Cancerians are not actually very original in the sense of fresh contributions, but once given a boost, a basic inspiration, they can elaborate on an idea so richly that it builds itself up into a whole new Weltanschauung, a whole new system. Perhaps it is Jupiter's special connection that is at the core of Cancer's compelling tendency to add to, to furbish and magnify.

My two Cancerian side-kicks have behaved marvelously while hovering over my shoulder to check on every word of this as it was ground out., They understood, as the reader must, that I have not been writing a "reading" for Sidereal Cancer but rather have been trying to touch on the extreme points differentiating this constellation from the others. The only sound way to understand the characteristics of the average is to understand the peculiarities of the extreme.

[Jim Eshelman]

Ok, without any longing to disrespect the writer, but out of a very strong need to critique I just have to say this; IF I would have read this when I was wondering if it was possible that I could be Cancer-Aries instead of Leo-Taurus then this article would most probably have convinced me that I was indeed not Cancer.

• 1. I don't get any of his emphasis on "shadows" - just don't get it.
  2.A very distinct and prominent thing about myself is that I can not stand to wear jewelry. I can not even wear a watch and was thinking about having a tattoo wedding band on my finger instead of a ring because I don't ever wear any jewelry. And I certainly do not like "knickknacks" or use nor like dollys (didn't even want to play with them as a child) although I sometimes arrange furniture (like most people do every now and then).
  3. I do have a very nice handwriting and I do write my capitals big and flashy, not sure about that as a trait for a certain sign though.
  4. About drama - I absolutely hate and detest when grown up people need to create drama all the time... but seeing that in a movie or a play is ok. "Just keep it real" is more my thing. And theatre or pretending is most certainly very far from what I am or how I act.
  5. I absolutely despise white liars and I am not a "fibber" nor white-lie teller. One of my friends (sidereal Libra Sun and Mercury) is like that and it is the thing I most detest about her. I just can't stand that trait in her although I still love her and we have many synastry points. She needs to say things in a manner that is soft, agreeable and sometimes just not true, white lies - she skips the truth to avoid conflict and it just always bothers me to see her do that. In fact more than one person has said to me that I might be a little too honest because I simply tell the sober truth and focus on always being honest.
  6. But I do like mysteries and I am sure many other signs like them as well as they are rather popular with most people. I also like puzzles and "systemry" as I am sure many other people do.

All in all I find this article to be so far off from what my "core" is that I would most probably have thrown it in the trash and if I hadn't read anything about sidereal Cancer and signs somewhere else I would most probably have dismissed the idea of being a Cancer immediately. But since I have read some other things about Cancer that I do resonate with, I will not dismiss it for now.

[Jim Eshelman]

Thanks. Most of the specific traits you list are highly consistent with your Aries Moon and your most angular planet, Saturn.

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes I kinda knew you would say that

Hence, the Sun is not necessarily 'the core'.

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes I kinda knew you would say that

Hence, the Sun is not necessarily 'the core'.

We probably wouldn't resolve that by debating it I do disagree: I think you are still measuring identity by behavior (which tends to be how Rims see things). The Moon-sign, showing adaptive patterns that protect us on our way through life, is, among other things, behaviors we develop to hide and protect our true selves. That is, often the Moon-sign hides the Sun-sign (which doesn't make the Sun-sign any less fundamental, it just buries it in protective adaptation).

I submit (but don't at all require you to agree) that you're fundamentally Cancer, and that Aries and Saturn (and Moon-Mars) have made it easier to survive, thrive, succeed - and feel safe and strong - and so you've built your behaviors and habits around it. (But these are lunar things. No surprise, of course, since you're fundamentally a lunar tyoe <vbg>.)

FWIW. Take it or leave it.

[Jim Eshelman]

This is good stuff! Thank you.

The one Cancer I know very well is a thing-accumulator, especially anything gaudy or intricate in the exotic or arabesque sense. I enjoyed a lot of her taste, and she was a talented collage artist, but it would easily veer into cluttered, hoarder territory. She had a great love of detailed plots and mysteries, and could you tell you all the detailed twists and turns in the plots of anything she had just watched. It made sense for her to be a producer, have a firm grip on all the details.

Speaking of Cancer, here's Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Conchords, playing a glitter-hording crab monster named Tamatoa, doing a Bowie-style glam-rock song, "Shiny".

https://youtu.be/93lrosBEW-Q

[Jim Eshelman]

Yes I kinda knew you would say that

Hence, the Sun is not necessarily 'the core'.

We probably wouldn't resolve that by debating it I do disagree: I think you are still measuring identity by behavior (which tends to be how Rims see things). The Moon-sign, showing adaptive patterns that protect us on our way through life, is, among other things, behaviors we develop to hide and protect our true selves. That is, often the Moon-sign hides the Sun-sign (which doesn't make the Sun-sign any less fundamental, it just buries it in protective adaptation).

I submit (but don't at all require you to agree) that you're fundamentally Cancer, and that Aries and Saturn (and Moon-Mars) have made it easier to survive, thrive, succeed - and feel safe and strong - and so you've built your behaviors and habits around it. (But these are lunar things. No surprise, of course, since you're fundamentally a lunar tyoe <vbg>.)

FWIW. Take it or leave it.

I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I think some of this may be right while with some of it I disagree.
"The core" to me is a picture of the whole, it is not individual parts of the whole picture. When we strip out some very important elements of the core/the whole picture we miss out on a lot. F.ex. from my statements above and knowing that I would be Cancer-Aries with Saturn angular you would not be able to know dominant traits of the Uranus angular which plays a big part as well.

Although I do agree on doing this project on discussing Sun signs and Moon signs because it can be an important part of our ability to see what is what. Where does this particular part of the personality come from, how can it be explained. Is it the luminaries placement, or is it an angular planet expression or even the Navamsha like Bradley pointed out in his writings.

[Jim Eshelman]

For sake of semantics, I use "core" literally to mean a singular thing at the center, around which behavior dances and moves. I would not use the word to mean the whole (since the whole has layers of fictions and adaptations and implementations in service to the core).

Though I'm not going to heavily control the flow of this, I do personally hope that the discussion almost entirely ignores everything else in the chart. We could get endlessly distracted doing that. I'd like the thread, when it gets to the end, to be a potential reference thread for people wanting to read about the sign. Other factors, it seems to me, are more useful when we come up against a wall of, say, someone having traits wildly at odds with what the majority of examples show. One is never not an expression of one's Sun-sign, it's too fundamental; but it is only one of a few factors, each of which is inevitably expressive in the person as well, so we have to deal with coexistence.