Skyscript Astrology Forum

Tom wrote:

I'll sit on it for a while. There is no rush.

Good. I still haven't had time to study these charts and would like a bit time to work up delineations on them all.

Looking at similar significators in occupations I would expect politicians to have much more in common with lawyers and business people than actors. A high proportion of elected politicians have a background in one of these areas.

Unfortunately, that makes separating the astrological signature for a successful business person or lawyer and a politician harder to distinguish than it might seem at first.

For example in the current US Congress out of 100 Senators and 435 members of the House of Representatives 225 (168 Representatives and 57 Senators) list the law as their occupational background. The next largest grouping listed in Congress is those with a business background: 201 (175 Representatives and 27 Senators) list business as their occupational background.

In the current United Kingdom Parliament the breakdown by occupational background is as follows:

13.8% lawyers (Barristers and Solicitors)
7.9% Teacher/Lecturers
6.1 Publisher/Journalist.
2.9% Civil service/Local Government employee
25.0% Business
14.5% Politician/Political organizer.

Just thought people might find this more factual perspective interesting when examining political charts.

Mark

delete

The actor in my opinion is n.3, same reason as Deborah, Venus has a better condition. Moreover the Moon in Scorpio in angular house likes to be at the centre of the world (no source, just experience from other charts)

And I agree with Mark, in more recent times it's difficult to see real differences between actors and politicians, the latter should go in TV, they are invited everywhere.

Tom was very nasty this time,

margherita

I'm not worried about distinguishing between the actor and the politician - actors are 'creatives' whereas politicians are driven by causes or the need to gather and exercise power. Actors need to be fluid and adaptable, but politicians need to be fixed in their goals yet able to negotiate and argue and use rhetoric. To me the problem is distinguishing between the politican and the business-man because they usually share the same drives.

This is a much harder challenge than the last one Tom, because there we had three distinct types of professions. At the moment I'm wavering between charts 2 and 3 for the actor - looking again, I can't help noticing that in chart 2 the Sun is especially creative in its own sign and on the trine of the MC; and Venus, Mercury and the Moon are all in good phase and make a square from the 6th house to the MC ruler Jupiter. I still have in mind that I recently quoted Ptolemy for saying that Mercury and Venus together produce musicians, but the full quote includes actors too. It reads (more fully)

Again, when two planets are found to rule action, if Mercury and Venus take the rulership, they bring about action expressed by the arts of the Muses, musical instruments, melodies, or poems, and rhythm, particularly when they have exchanged places. For they produce workers in the theatre, actors, dealers in slaves, makers of musical instruments, members of the chorus, makers of strings, painters, dancers, weavers, and wax-moulders. and again, if Saturn testifies to them, he produces those in the aforesaid callings, as well as dealers in feminine finery. If Jupiter testifies, he produces lawyers, supervisors of counting houses,18 public officers, teachers of children, leaders of the populace.(IV.4)
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... 4A*.html#4

So I'm keeping chart 3 as my actor, with chart 2 as a viable alternative, but ruling chart 1 out for the actor because I have decided that is definitely a statesman or person with extensive business contacts who is looked up to as a superior, taken seriously, involved in 'dealings', and not to be messed with. That's the only chart I have given much thought to so far so I'll come back on that later when I've decided if it's possible to tell the difference between commercial business or public politics - I'm not sure it is, so I might have to guess between them, but I'll give my reasoning on why I don't think it's the actor later.

BTW, hope we can have plenty of time for this Tom because I have to fit this into coffee-breaks.

Im thinking chart 2 is the actor, possibly comedy actor. Using whole sign houses, dignified jupiter is placed in 10 (comedy?); moon (ruling 5) close to dignified mercury (wordsmith) plus venus in 7 (good looking), plus the leo planets. Im thinking, big personality but clever too (virgo planets).

Have we been told the gender yet?

delete

There is a difference between a self-created businessman, and someone who became a member of a corporate board. A member of a corporate board is more similar to a politician in a democracy - both of the latter are more similar to thugs, and exploiters of existing institutions; they only appear afterwards to exploit what others created.

This is an astrology exercise, not an editorial on class warfare. Please stick to the astrology.

Hi Varuna

I'm still thinking about chart 1. That has Jupiter rising in Aquarius, so it's easy to relate that to a statesman-type figure concerned with social order, but it's hard to rule out commercial wealth since Jupiter rules the 2nd house too. Jupiter is in sextile to Mercury in the 10th house, so I think this person would be a communicator with big, expansive, or liberal ideas. However, because Mercury is in detriment and applying to the opposition of Saturn in Gemini it looks like it is a challenge to talk, or s/he has to think hard, or it involves serious matters. It doesn't look like this person is essentially gifted as a quick thinker/talker, but someone who needs to take time and make important judgements. I'm not too interested in Venus on the MC because it is combust and in detriment. That is more likely to show where this person fails (homelife?, since Venus rules IC; or trouble with parents, or with children since Saturn is Ret on 5th cusp and 5th ruler is afflicted).

That is why I don't think this chart belongs to a 'creative'.

The Moon is very powerful in the chart and being so close to the angle usually brings public recognition. Moon applies to 10th-ruler Mars in a Mercurial sign in the 8th house and Mars itself is in a close trine to the asc and Jupiter. So the three planets I recognise as being key are Jupiter on asc., Mercury in 10th, and Mars ruling MC and being applied to by the Moon. I think this fits the profile of someone who fights for justice or social concerns, who possibly has army connections, and who makes influential decisions rather than quick negotiations.

Ah, it's hard - entrepreneurs can be described by Mercury in good aspect to Jupiter, but here Mercury is opposite to Saturn and that doesn't feel right to me.

So I'm a bit stuck, but my best guess for chart one would be the politician. (If not the politician, then the buisness-man).

I'm assuming all three are male, though gender wouldn't make any difference to me anyway.
If I have to identify all three charts then I would put my money on:

1) Politician
2) Business man (no particular reason except he has to go somewhere)
3) Actor

I wonder if it amuses you to watch our torment Tom?

Tom wrote:But here is a twist that may or may not influence. Of the two that are not the actor, one was born, raised, worked and died in the 19th century. I never said they were all contemporaries. Heh[/color]

OH.


Well that change my reasoning for the actor. I was just assuming a modern actor which is often more a celebrity. My rationale was also that Mercury would be important in an actor's chart, though obviously important in a politician's chart too. So my choices of either Chart 1 or 2 still stand for the actor (with the other one being, I would guess, the politician) but if it was an old classical actor maybe that detrimented angular mercury would be more pertinent.

In terms of identifying one planet in each chart to act as the significator of 'magistry', following traditional methods, I would identify it as Mercury in chart 1 and Venus in charts 2 and 3. I wonder if others agree or disagree with that?

Paul - he said one of the two that are not the actor died in the 19th century, so it sounds like the actor is contemporary, but that our businessman might not have had a mobile phone glued to his ear, or the politician wasn't a member of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party - I don't know how it would make a difference. I keep coming across the discussion of this in traditional works and it's distracting me. So far today I've read Rhetorius and Schoener - most of the attributions hold up over time, although why Schoener believes that "a fornicator" belongs under his list of professions I don't know.