Within the depth-psychology corpus, Gemini functions as a charged symbolic node where mythological, astrological, and psychological currents converge around the archetype of the twin—duality, inner division, and the paradox of identity. Liz Greene’s treatment in The Astrology of Fate stands as the most sustained depth-psychological reading: she situates Gemini within the mythological complex of the divine twins, arguing that the sign enacts an archetypal splitting of the self into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ halves, each projected outward until the individual is forced to recognize both as interior realities. Greene’s related work with Sasportas reads the Gemini Sun as a teleological demand for communicative self-articulation, and the Moon in Gemini as a lunar need nourished by intellectual exchange and relational curiosity. Jung briefly but significantly names Gemini in Aion as the sign hosting the Saturn-Jupiter conjunction of 531 CE, aligning its twin-symbolism with the Dioscuri and the broader motif of antithetical pairs. Sasportas, Cunningham, Arroyo, and Rudhyar treat Gemini in more structural terms—as one of the three air signs, the mutable sign governed by Mercury, the Ascendant or house-cusp position conditioning curiosity and versatility. Across all these voices, a key tension persists: Gemini’s intellectual brilliance and adaptability are repeatedly shadowed by charges of superficiality, evasion, and the failure to integrate the warring inner twins—a psychological critique that gives the sign its peculiar urgency in astrological depth work.