Specialized Inquiries: Vocation

[Jim Eshelman]

GENERAL INTRODUCTION: Sidereal astrologers have rarely written at length about how to judge specific areas of life about which people may have recurring questions. Tropical astrologers dwell on this extensively, surely fortified by the idea (that may or may not be true) that different areas of life are "governed" by different houses.

Speaking for myself, I've not written about such topics extensively because my primary interest is exposing character and its unfolding. I disagree with the house-driven premise that we are drastically different in how we handle different parts of our lives. Instead, I find that, "How you are in one part of your life, so are you in all the parts of your life" - your inherent self ultimately shines through one way or the other. Therefore, my basic answer to any question of "How does this person act in the X part of his or her life?" or "Over the course of life, what is likely to happen to this person?" will always be: "Understand who this person is: That will tell you what you want to know."

Nonetheless, we do have ways of placing a magnifying glass over one or another area of life; we just haven't sharpened these tools. I propose to start a series of threads on different life areas. For each, I will post this introduction; then reserve the first reply space for me to post my primary answer (as I get around to it). The rest of the thread is wide open to discussion and contribution. (Over time, I will edit my premise-post with the idea of turning it into an instruction in the topic, fed by the discussion. You don't have to wait for my premise-post to post on the topic.)

Some will be tempted, based on the nature of these topics, to jump into the houses as a quick answer. As the thread is open to discussion, that's fine; but, as usual, my own opinion is that we should stick with techniques that we have proof work, which at this stage in astrology's unfolding would minimize or exclude the use of houses.

Everyone feel free to jump in!

[Jim Eshelman]

I have rewritten this topic. The new posts begin here:
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4843#p54343

Employment will reflect different ways in a horoscope depending, first, on what level the person is pursuing. Most of us start with simply work, something to produce a paycheck. A vocation, though, as its etymology tells us, is a calling, something you were born to do, called to do. Not everyone wants employment that's a vocation, but it's actually the easier thing to see in a horoscope.

So, first, we might want to assess some basic details about the the native's relationship to work in general. Whether malefics or benefics dominate will tell us whether the person is more about working hard, expending energy, laboring (Saturn and Mars) or wants an easier life, more leisurely time, less hard labor (Jupiter and Venus). Sun is more purposeful and directed, Moon more willing to be flexible and adaptable (and also more service oriented). Uranus and Pluto types won't follow conventional paths. Mercury prefers mental work (moving information around), especially if benefics are stronger than malefics (prefer using their minds to their muscles). Nearly half the planets are more social and like being around people while most of the rest are less social and do better on their own. These preliminaries are useful.

I think there are also important generalizations to draw from the quadruplicities, especially of Sun (but not to exclude Moon entirely). Hubs, Spokes, and Rims approach occupation in fundamentally different ways and I think it shows.

When it comes to identifying a specific vocation, I usually look at Sun-sign and angular planets more than anything else - but there are other things to consider with them. The core idea is that vocation needs to be a full expression of who one is.

Gauquelin's work with angular planets shows four fundamentally different approaches to occupation (among those who become eminent) depending on whether Moon, Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn is more angular: Think of writers, athletes, actors, and scientists (respectively) not as specific occupations but as styles. (I think these probably match four branching categories vocational counsellors follow to start identifying a direction for someone.)

Sun-sign is terribly important for vocation. Often it will peg the job itself, though not necessarily; for example, there are magnificent composers with every Sun-sign. Often, then, there will simply be something reflected in the Sun-sign that is important to the native in how they engage in the occupation, their style, their distinction within their field.

Moon-sign is a minor factor by comparison, perhaps showing a style or method more than a particular field.

A few other points: Gauquelin professional collections match shockingly well to Midheaven sign, but in a specific way: It is as if the ruling planet of a sign is on Midheaven (in contrast to simply being a wide unfolding of MC). Specific statistically significant scores for MC signs were sports champions for Aries; painters, actors, politicians, and aviators for Taurus; writers, journalists, sports champions, military, and (more weakly) physicians for Gemini; military musicians for Libra; musicians for Scorpio [not as good a fit]; physicians (good fit) and journalists (bad fit) for Capricorn; and scientists in Aquarius. (Take these as examples.)

There is also strong correspondence of Venus-sign to occupation: I think it must mean what one loves to do. Consider: painters but not writers (Taurus), actors but not military musicians (Gemini), politicians but not athletes (Cancer), sports champions but not musicians (Leo), journalists but not athletes (Virgo), athletes (Scorpio), aviators [!] (Sagittarius), journalists and athletes but not physicians (Capricorn), physicians, painters, and writers (Aquarius), and not military or military musicians (Aries).

Having gathered this sort of astrological data from a chart, I always like to ask what someone is interested in, what they've done that they liked, what they're already studying. Every person alive has had more time to think about his or her life and what to do with it than I'd ever spend on their chart, so they've got important creativity to bring to the question.

Give me, say, five or six fields to pick between, tell me what you like or don't like about each, and, based on the chart factors discussed above, it's usually pretty easy to pick the best fit.

[Jim Eshelman]

Jupiter Sets at Dawn had helped me gather links about theories of scientific vocational placement that I want to consider before writing a full treatment of vocational analysis. We got sidetracked from that project at the time, so I never got deeply into the material.

I'm going to paste the links here with little or no comment, and no endorsement of anything, just so I find them when I start on this chapter in a few weeks.

Here's a bunch of those tests. https://openpsychometrics.org/
The one I've seen used the most in employment is the Holland Codes assessment:
"IIP RIASEC Markers: The Holland Codes (the acronym RIASEC refers to the six Holland Codes) is a typology of occupations that groups jobs into six categories and describes the different personality characteristics of people who are inclined towards each category. Since its developed by John L. Holland in the 1950s the theory has become dominant one in the field of career counselling and it has been incorporated into most of the assessment you might take at a university career planning centre. The RIASEC Markers from the public domain Interest Item Pool were developed by James Rounds and colleagues in 2008 for use in psychological research."

The list of jobs sorted by Holland Codes is
https://www.onetonline.org/explore/inte ... Realistic/
there's lots of useful stuff on that site. https://www.onetonline.org

Here's one of those tests.
https://careerwise.minnstate.edu/exoffe ... rests.html

[Jim Eshelman]

The Holland Codes assessment measures six markers categorizing work task interests (RIASEC) named:

Realistic [Doers] {hunters}
Investigative [Thinkers] {shamans}
Artistic [Creators] {artisans}
Social [Helpers] {healers}
Enterprising [Persuaders] {leaders}
Conventional [Organizers] {lore-keepers}

(I've put in brackets John Holland's updated simple statements of what the primary names mean. I've put in curly brackets another researcher's linking of the six types to ancient social roles.)

A person's top three markers are sometimes called their "Holland Code." (E.g., mine are CAI.) The U.S. Department of Labor maintains a database of occupations sorted by Holland Codes. Here is mine as an example: https://www.onetonline.org/explore/inte ... stigative/

Wikipedia summarizes the method here including giving summaries of what each category is like in terms of character: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_Codes

[Jim Eshelman]

A fairly modern career-mindful site (likely distorting Holland's original definitions but perhaps in a way that is consistent with modern vocational guidance) lists a series of quick keywords.

R: Realistic, hands-on, tangible, strength, down to earth
I: Investigative, research, critical thinking, analysis, formulas
A: Artistic, creative, emotive, unique, feelings
S: Social, helpful, talkative, empathy, connect
E: Enterprising, bold, risk-taking, sales, leadership
C: Conventional, Order, Methodology, Statistics, Data

Word choice tips these different ways to our astrological ears. However, after reading many modern treatments, I'm leaning toward this:

R: Realistic: Mars
I: Investigative: Mercury
A: Artistic: Uranus
S: Social: Venus
E: Enterprising: Jupiter
C: Conventional: Saturn

[Jim Eshelman]

“What kind of work should I do? What should I train for?” Astrologers frequently hear this sort of question. Sometimes it means, “What sort of job should I pursue?” Usually, though, the underlying question is, “What is my place in the world? What am I best suited to do with my life?”

I titled this chapter “Vocation” to make clear that that I am not writing about a gig, a job, or how to make a buck (though all those things may result from it). I am writing, instead, about a vocation, a calling, from the Latin voco, “to call or summon.” We might also strain the etymology a little to suggest that finding your vocation is the means to finding your voice in the world. A career (literally, “road”) or occupation (what you find yourself doing with your time) should ideally be consistent with your calling and a forward step in your finding your voice in the world.

You have little new to learn about the astrology of this subject. Mostly, vocation is described by what you already learned in the chapter on Synthesis. A fulfilling vocation, a genuine calling, is found not in any one segment of the horoscope but, rather, in the integrated whole.

Fulfilling vocation is an expression of
the strongest themes in your natal chart
and how they mix to describe you
as a whole, complex person.

Astrological vocational analysis begins by identifying occupations that fit a person’s character. This is exactly the approach of successful tools used by professional vocational counselors such as the RIASEC model (aka the Holland Codes), developed by psychologist John L. Holland. The RIASEC model is named after six character components – Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional – essentially doers, thinkers, creators, helpers, persuaders, and organizers. These seductively resemble astrological principles such as planets until one analyzes them closely: I think there is not a one-for-one matching of these six themes to six planets. (Otherwise, I would happily coopt them as a framework for the present chapter!) Nonetheless, the underlying philosophy and approach are the same: Each provides a process of matching character to vocation.

[Jim Eshelman]

No matter what else I may seem to say in this chapter, full astrological vocational analysis – which is lifepath analysis – requires a full, nuanced examination of a person’s nativity. There are no shortcuts. Even Charles Carter bluntly wrote at the beginning of his vocation section in The Principles of Astrology:

Vocation may be judged in a general sense from the whole horoscope and the type of person whom it represents.

Jobs in our economy have changed rapidly in recent decades. Therefore, I will not provide the usual catalogue of possible jobs linked to each sign or planet (something that would be obsolete ten years after I wrote it). I will, however, provide tactics to help navigate the seemingly uncountable number of possible careers.

While the entire horoscope is important to this question, we have shortcuts to start us on the right path. These are the same shortcuts that we use to assess someone’s character. To identify a possible vocation, I usually look first at Sun and Moon sign and foreground planets. Other factors also are important, e.g., other sign placements and (especially) close, dynamic aspects seeking expression. Just as with character, we are off to a good start by considering luminary signs and angular planets.

As a preliminary step before the consultation, assess basic chart details through commonsense questions with an eye toward the person’s relationship to work in general. For example:

• Malefic or benefic dominance tells whether someone prefers working hard, expending energy, and physically laboring (Saturn and Mars) or wants an easier life with less labor and more leisure (Jupiter and Venus).
• Sun is more purposeful and directed, Moon is service oriented and more willing to be flexible, adaptable, and shifting.
• Uranus and Pluto will not follow conventional paths (and not always respond respectfully to authority).
• Mercury prefers mental work (moving information around). If with Venus or Jupiter stronger than malefics, the person prefers using mind instead of muscles. If with Mars or Saturn the leaning is more mechanical.
• About half the planets are more social and like being around people. Most of the others are less social and work better on their own.

These commonsense preliminaries usefully narrow and clarify the field of possibilities.

Having gathered this from the chart in advance, ask the client what interests them, what kind of work they have done before that they liked (or did not like), whether they are already studying, certified, or licensed for something, and how they feel about it. Every person alive has had more time to think about his or her life and future than an astrologer would ever spend on their chart. The client can bring important creativity to the question.

Having assessed the person’s character and likely work traits from the horoscope and learned about their history, interests, and passions (including what has and has not worked in the past), I ask then for four or five fields they want to consider and what each job means to them – what they like or dislike about it.

By this point, a career path usually is evident, since we have narrowed the question to which of these named fields matches their character best.

[Jim Eshelman]

Angular planets are of primary importance. The largest, most important research on occupation and angularity is the work undertaken, across four decades, by French statistician Michel Gauquelin (and, for 30 of those years, his wife, Franoise Gauquelin).

Gauquelin gathered thousands of birth records of eminent professionals and analyzed them statistically from several perspectives. He documented a strong statistical correlation between eminence (success) in particular occupations and specific natal planets at or just past the angles, especially Ascendant and Midheaven. For example, he found that eminent athletes had a strong tendency to be born at or just past the rising or culmination of Mars. For actors, the same pattern existed for Jupiter instead of Mars; for scientists, the rising or culminating planet was Saturn; and so on.

Later, Gauquelin documented that personality traits were the link between occupational success and birth hour: He collected (from published biographical profiles) a list of personality traits others had attributed to each of the athletes. While the athletes overall had Mars rising or culminating with a statistically abnormal frequency, this angularity effect was much stronger when he only included athletes characterized by such traits as self-willed, aggressive, courageous, combative, and fiery. Furthermore, the athletes described as having opposite traits had the opposite pattern for Mars, which avoided the rising and culminating hot zones. Finally, when he examined the other collections of professionals (occupations that had not previously shown Mars angular at birth), those doctors, actors, writers, and others described by the Mars character traits also showed Mars rising and culminating in abnormally high, statistically significant numbers.

He repeated this with trait sets typical of the other professions. In all cases, the character traits produced stronger results than the occupations themselves, and the trait effect was consistent across occupation groups. The astrological connection he had found was to character traits that commonly led to occupational eminence, not simply to occupational eminence itself.

Gauquelin documented occupational links to the rising or culminating of four planets: Moon, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. He eventually also confirmed one character trait matching angular Venus (charming). Professions linked to the angularity of each planet (with + and – signifying that the planet was statistically common or uncommon, respectively) are:

Moon + writers, politicians
– soldiers, athletes
Mars + soldiers, athletes, executives, doctors
– artists, writers
Jupiter + actors, politicians, journalists, soldiers
– scientists, doctors
Saturn + scientists, doctors
– actors, journalists, writers, artists

Why were no correlations found for other planets? I think the other planets do not match specific conventional occupations in the same way. For example, the outer three planets have more outlier temperaments.

Notice that Moon and Mars were significantly common and uncommon for opposite occupational groups (as they were for character traits). Jupiter and Saturn also show opposite results. On the other hand, Moon and Jupiter occupation groups overlap, as do Mars and Saturn groups. This agrees with what astrologers claim about these planets’ usual characters.

Interestingly, these four planets are those dignified in Cancer (Moon and Jupiter) and Capricorn (Mars and Saturn). Cancer is like Moon and Jupiter and unlike Mars and Saturn; Capricorn is the opposite. What I find intriguing is that astrologers have long linked the Cancer-Capricorn polarity to occupation and eminence by analogy to the 4th-10th House axis. (One historic theory analogizes Cancer to H10; another links H10 to Capricorn.) This may be a coincidence, though I find it an interesting coincidence.

I have described Gauquelin’s findings slightly differently than how they usually are explained. Based on his earliest published work, his work usually is summarized as showing the signature planet (Mars for athletes, Jupiter for actors) most common in the 12th and 9th Houses. This is correct when planet positions are collated only by house placement (12 segments of the circle). However, the picture becomes more nuanced when the planets are grouped more granularly, e.g., in 36 segments (thirds of houses).

As discussed in earlier chapters, the “strong zones” for planet angularity flow across house boundaries: House boundaries are not the correct boundaries for angularity effects. Other than the Gauquelin results, every successful study of diurnal planet placement I have ever seen shows the peak at, and approximately symmetrical to, the angles themselves.

Many of us spent years speculating on why the Gauquelin results seemed to lean deeper into the cadent houses than the angular ones. We raised questions (for example) about technical procedures and birth data recording practices. However, there seemed to be no procedural bias distorting the effect.

This seeming discrepancy resolved for me one afternoon when Michel asked me why I resisted the angularity pattern his work had documented repeatedly. I said that every other study I had seen showed planetary strength peaking exactly at the angles, equally strong on either side of the angle. To my surprise, Michel said this is exactly what he had found, too, to the extent that the two strongest sectors in his results usually were the two zones straddling the angles.

This was eye-opening! We left that conversation agreeing on where planetary strength peaked, though disagreeing on the less consequential fine points of what the strength curve looked like away from that peak.

If all angles are of comparable strength, why is the “Gauquelin effect” dramatically pronounced at Ascendant and Midheaven but not at Descendant and Antemeridian? While this might mean that Ascendant and Midheaven are significantly stronger, I think the reason is more likely a qualitative distinction. Subjectively, it seems that MC and Ascendant express traits with which a person identifies more (traits the person “owns”), while IC and Descendant are somewhat “disowned” (given their traditional association with relationships more than identity). In practice, if someone has only Descendant or IC (or a minor angle) occupied, I count that planet as angular for vocational purposes; but if a planet is on Ascendant or MC and comparably close to the angle, I give it greater weight for this specialized purpose.

[Jim Eshelman]

Gauquelin’s findings with regard to angular planets seem to show four substantially different personality approaches to occupation among those who become eminent (meaning that the person was well suited to the occupation). These four types are distinguished by whether Moon, Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn is more angular. Think of writers, athletes, actors, and scientists (respectively) not as specific occupations but as styles.

Saturn occupations (scientists and physicians) are fields that benefit from Saturn’s usual traits, requiring such things as years of rigorous training, discipline, careful attention to rote and repetitive steps, and less artistic creativity and dependence on connection to other people. Jupiter traits, in contrast, favor areas of entertainment, creativity, interpersonal connection, and having a commanding presence. Mars traits give advantage to competitive, driven, physically active fields in which one can dominate the terrain and perhaps use one’s muscles. Moon types, better equipped to show empathy and connect to an audience, are less suited for competition.

These four types are so well established that, if you can discern one of these four planets dominating the angles of a nativity – especially on Ascendant or Midheaven – you are off to a good start by considering the person an easy fit to the type.

[Jim Eshelman]

Occupational patterns of all ten planets are elaborated in the standard interpretations in Appendix A. Angularity is so important to this topic, though, that these interpretations warrant repeating here. Remember, though, that everything arising from a closely angular planet is important to how one functions in an occupation (and in life overall), not just the paragraphs marked as occupational.

MOON: Responsive, flexible, empathic. Reflexively takes up accent and mannerisms (advantage in sales, service, performance, politics, counselling, teaching, or other public facing). Amiable, accommodating, obliging, tolerant, good-hearted (suiting the service sector). Natural before an audience (creates rapport). Talent for improving others’ foundations (editors, arrangers, adapters, developers, promoters, caretakers, and assistants).

SUN: Leaders (do well in charge of others, work well within hierarchy) often with continuity or successorship (role inheritance). Needs a chance to shine, wants to make an impact and contribute. Attracted to institutions that convey heritage and incite pride.

MERCURY: Curious, acquires and shares information, demonstrates relationships between facts. Business knack, entrepreneurial, oriented toward commerce; drives business by moving information. Attentive, strategic, analytic, precise, detailed. Manually skilled, mechanical aptitude. Easy boredom without frequent mental stimulation.

VENUS: Charming, gracious, considerate, popular, friendly, pleasing, funny. Loving, caretaking, devoted: especially loves (at ease with) young people (teachers, childcare). Needs to see personal or social justice (passionate about causes). Needs work setting and conditions that reduce stress and friction for them.

MARS: Independent, self-willed, aggressive, competitive, persevering, dominating, controlling. Need to burn energy (physical, mental). Want their own way, make their own decisions, run their own show, (respects chain of command). Soldiers, athletes, executives, doctors, physical trainers, realtors, high-pressure sales, other competitive and blood pressure straining fields, sex professionals, law enforcement, and anything relying on muscles and strength. In business: leadership and competitive excellence. (Few teachers.)

JUPITER: Ambitious, authoritative. Needs esteem, respect, applause. Aspires to rank, wants recognition as an expert (especially the men), to be liked and important (connects to people). Motivated by elevation, perks, opportunity to advance. Actors and singers with a honed instinct for entertainment. Better suited to a blessed life than one of hardship or exertion.

SATURN: Any field that needs driven, industrious endurance, perseverance, and persistence, from physical laborer to executive. Medicine and other sciences requiring rigor, conscientious method, detail, long training. Suited to construct, order, acquire, conserve, and retain. “Good worker traits” (unless in rebellious mode). Uncommon for creative types (artists, actors, writers, and journalists).

URANUS: Diverse possible occupations usually selected for maximum freedom of thought and movement, to evade conflicts with authority, and to avoid boredom. Drawn to science, inquiry, discovery, technology, novelty (absorbs ideas quickly). Unconventional, sometimes provocative or peculiar, not wired to meet others’ expectations.

NEPTUNE: Creators who forge absorbing realities (e.g., painters, other artists, novelists, filmmakers, storytellers). Math, abstract science; psychology, and other counselling. Politicians, actors, or any field that mobilizes aptitude for weaving seductive experiences. Needs to be absorbed, immersed, enchanted, fascinated, or spellbound by something.

PLUTO: Diverse occupations. Vocation must allow time for solitude and independence without excessive, arbitrary oversight. Most successful Pluto types are independent, self-employed, with some form of “going it alone” (e.g., entrepreneurs), sometimes with an element of changing a prevailing paradigm.

[Jim Eshelman]

Alongside angular planets, luminary signs are the most important individual guides to vocation. As you have seen from the earliest chapters of this book, Sidereal Sun and Moon signs commonly give the basic template of someone’s nature including elements of their “brand,” their most important interests and traits, and the main overarching themes of their lives.

Among Michel Gauquelin’s earliest statistical examinations of professionals was examining their Tropical Sun signs. The results were so disappointing (both by lack of statistical significance and the sign symbolism where he found an occasional sign favored) that he dismissed sign placement as significant.

Then, on January 4, 1980 – a date I remember easily because, coincidentally, it was the tenth anniversary of Cyril Fagan’s death – Michel invited me to his San Diego home half a block from Astro Computing Services (which sponsored his work for many years). Sitting next to ACS’s ace programmer, Tom Shanks, Michel pushed across a table a stack of paper two and a half inches thick and opened it to a page showing Sidereal Sun and Moon placements for Michel’s collection of 3,047 eminent soldiers.

“Look,” he said. “Sun and Moon in Aries.” Sure enough, Sun and Moon were in Aries more than in any other part of the Sidereal zodiac. As Michel was quick to point out, Sun’s excess in Aries was not very large, the surplus not statistically significant. Yet, through his professional restraint, his eyes twinkled like a child with a new toy. He had been chasing the possibility of Aries for soldiers for 25 years. (By the way, the surplus for Moon and Mercury in Aries was statistically significant.)

Let me be clear that Michel Gauquelin never embraced, as a scientist, the idea that the Sidereal zodiac produced confirmed statistically significant results. He was, however, enthused at a new line of inquiry. I regret that, though I went on to work at ACS for two years, being down the hill from Michel and Françoise and sitting next to Tom every day, I never gave them what they asked for their next step and could never persuade them to approach the research the way I wanted.

I was 25 years old. I could have handled it better.

However, thanks to their gift, I had exhaustive computer printouts of statistical assessment of Sun, Moon, other planets, Ascendant, and Midheaven in the Sidereal signs for every Gauquelin professional group and primary character trait. This helped me enormously over the years in assessing the relative importance of different astrological factors and clarifying observable character traits of Sidereal sign placements.

Michel was as intrigued as I at some of the character trait results, though he was firm that additional tests were needed before endorsing the results. For example, the 423 eminent professionals whose biographers called them charming had statistically significant surpluses of Sun in Sidereal Taurus and Libra, ruled by charming Venus. In contrast, the charmlessness of Venus’ fall, Virgo, was documented when only 23 of these “charming” people (instead of the expected 45) had a Virgo Suns. (Half!) Odds were more than 1,300-to-1 against this shortfall happening by chance.

Or, changing to an opposite planetary tone, for the 225 powerful professionals, Sun was high in Scorpio and low in Libra, both comfortably beyond the thousand-to-one range of chance occurrence.

I can easily site pleasing, encouraging excerpts from this two-and-a-half-inch thick pile of paper, though other results (usually of much less statistical unusualness) are less clear-cut. Among the best profession results for Moon sign placements, for example, were statistically anomalous highs in Gemini for physicians, Sagittarius for actors, and Aries for soldiers. Mars was significantly high in Gemini and low in Pisces for the eminent scientists.

However, these results are not as strong overall as those for angular planets. At least one reason for this difference is that sign placements only sometimes show a profession per se. Sometimes, instead, they show individual, varied styles within a field.

Profession vs. Style
Suppose you had a large collection of eminent lawyers (perhaps thousands of examples) and you found that Sun was in Libra more than any other constellation, with a frequency so unusual that it could only happen by chance one time in a million.

We already have two smaller studies of lawyers (a few hundred examples each) where Sun in Libra was most common and statistically significant, so; given a large enough sample, the above result seems likely.

However, even with such gratifying numerical results, a sterling confirmation that Libra is linked to the practice of law, over 80% of your sample lawyers still would not have Sun in Libra. From the point of view of those individual successful lawyers, their Sun sign would not describe their profession. What it would likely show, though, is their individual style within their profession.

Composers are an easier example. Certain Sun signs are more common among composers than others, yet great, famous, successful composers can be found with Sun in every constellation. What we find is that their Sun signs are more descriptive of their compositional styles. That is, their music became a true expression of their own natures, as it should.

Therefore, we find the depth, textured complexity, and sensuous eroticism of Taurians Wagner, Strauss, and Schumann; the prolific popularity of Geminis Stravinsky, Mahler, Stephen Foster, and Foster’s eventual contemporary successor, Paul McCartney; the triumphant, majestic horns blazing in Leo Bruckner and the gigantic scale of Sagittarius Beethoven; the haunting economy of composition and refined melodies of Capricorns Mozart, Schubert, and Mendelssohn (Fagan liked to repeat the view that Mozart had not one stray note in all his work); the remarkable quality and exacting forms of Virgos Verdi, Holst, Gershwin, and Shostakovich; the sharply contrasting popular, prolific Libras Liszt, Copland, and Sousa; the stormy dark passions of Scorpios Donizetti, Berlioz, and Sibelius; and lush, indulgent majesty of Piscians like Bach, Haydn, Rimsky-Korsakov, and Rachmaninoff. Even the relatively unmusical Aries gives the (can I say imperious?) Brahms, Tchaikovsky, and Prokofiev.

Musical constellations (Gemini and Capricorn through Pisces) give more great composers; yet, across the zodiac, every sign gives its musical stylistic flavor to those of its children that compose.

The same is true across every profession. Besides other creative vocations, this appears in the practice of law, specialties and approaches within medicine and the sciences, and the pursuit of political power. Only two of the 45 men who have been U.S. president had Sun in Aquarius, less than half the average. Yet those two were George Washington and Abraham Lincoln who hold a unique place in the nation’s history quite distinctive from the Virgo, Scorpio, and Aries presidents who have dominated the line.

Often, then, luminary sign portents are important to how someone engages in an occupation (their style or distinction) more than naming the field itself.

[Jim Eshelman]

Midheaven Sign
Historically, astrologers have looked to the 10th House for clues about vocation. However, Midheaven is demonstrably no more important than Ascendant for planet angularity linked to vocation. Luminary signs are usually far more obviously descriptive of vocation than Midheaven’s sign.

However, the MC sign is not without value, though perhaps more to tip the scales on choices under consideration. Several Gauquelin profession groups had statistically unusual preferences for one Midheaven sign or another. Nearly all of these obviously fit the sign’s symbolism.

These signs have a particular characteristic: In most cases the symbolism is most straightforward if you read them as if the MC constellation’s ruler were angular, e.g., Capricorn MC for doctors as if Saturn were angular, or Taurus MC for painters as if Venus were angular. I recommend using these not as a first assessment, but only to supplement your analysis once the principal factors have been weighed. Statistically significant highs for MC signs were:

Aries - sports champions
Taurus - painters, actors, politicians
Gemini - writers, journalists, athletes, military, doctors
Libra - military musicians
Scorpio - musicians
Capricorn - doctors, journalists
Aquarius scientists

Venus Sign
Another surprising correspondence in the Gauquelin professional data was that Venus’ sign was statistically anomalous and unusually fitting in several cases. I suspect this first caught my attention when I saw that Venus in Sagittarius was statistically common for aviators! Several others fit nearly as well.

This is interesting because it is neither a traditional teaching nor commonly proposed by contemporary astrologers. I am sure the significance is that Venus’ constellation reflects what one loves to do, which indeed is important in choosing a career. I do not usually see Venus’ sign reflected in most people’s career choices, though it does seem (from these statistics) somewhat typical for those who succeed and become eminent in various fields. Like Midheaven’s sign, I suggest using this only as a supplemental factor once you are close to a final recommendation.

Here are Venus signs that were significantly common or uncommon for the named occupations:

Tau - painters (not writers)
Gem - actors (not military musicians)
Can - politicians (not athletes)
Leo - athletes (not musicians)
Vir - journalists (not athletes)
Sco - athletes
Sag - aviators
Cap - journalists, athletes (not doctors)
Aqu doctors, painters, writers

The one result the seems to miss the mark entirely is military being significantly low for Venus in Aries (even though Sun, Moon, and Mercury were highest in Aries). I suspect this is because Venus in Aries ideally wants to bring peace to warring conditions. Aries Venus does, however, rise easily into leadership roles.

[Jim Eshelman]

Astrological researchers have performed scores of studies of professional preferences over the years, primarily against Sun’s sign. These studies are of varying quality: Not all deserve repeating. Furthermore, they do not approach the level where I could give a meaningful list of “occupations for each sign” based only on such statistics. Finally, conditions within these occupations change across the decades so that what it takes to succeed in one decade is not necessarily what it takes to succeed a decade later.

Nonetheless, by listing a smattering of the results from the better-performed studies, I can demonstrate ways Sun signs ignite interest and ability in a particular occupation.

Surely the most interesting studies correlating Sun signs with vocation link popular iconography of a profession to traditional iconography of the constellation. For example, two studies of lawyers’ births show a statistically significant excess of Sun in Libra, the scales of justice being the symbol for the legal profession. In contrast, judges are predominantly Virgos, including more than a third of all U.S. Chief Justices, Virgo traditionally being drawn as the goddess of justice holding (controlling) those scales.

One of the two Sun signs most common for physicians is Mercury-ruled Gemini: The medical field’s primary symbol is Mercury’s caduceus. In a study of all Roman Catholic popes since 1000 CE, Sun and Moon were each most commonly in Taurus: The bull is a primary symbol of the Throne of St. Peter. In a study of the 1,113 boxers in a standard boxing encyclopedia, Sun was most often in Pisces (the image of two tethered fish resembling the familiar image of two boxing gloves tied together) and Gemini (in mythology, one of the Gemini twins is credited with inventing boxing).

Other sign-job pairings seem expressive of body types typical of the Sun signs. (Studies of major U.S. pro sports in the late 1960s and early ’70s included 100% of all players in their leagues at the time.) For example, men with Taurus Suns (one physical variation of which is “beefy”) were the most likely to be professional football players and least likely to be basketball players. Tall, lean basketball players were found statistically likely to have Gemini Suns and Leo Moons.

Other professional sports results matched the athletes’ temperament, e.g., among baseball players, Leo was significantly common for pitchers (the commanding centerpiece at the heart of the diamond); Virgos excelled in baseball most, but especially in support positions such as outfielders; and Sagittarius also was statistically favored for all positions except pitcher. Scorpio topped one study of championship racecar drivers, while Libra seems to avoid professions where one can get hurt and (perhaps especially) scarred, such as racecar drivers, boxers, soldiers, sailors, and explorers.

Finally, among sports, Aquarius tops the ranks for chess, including chess grandmasters!

Many of the remaining findings are mentioned in Appendix A sign interpretations or are logically obvious. Taurus and Libra are both strong in art and design with Libra leading for fine arts. Taurus, while passionate about issues and devoted to causes, is apolitical (but common for non-political federal employees). Diverse Gemini is strong in business, among physicians, in many categories of artists (especially music and some fine art), and academic posts.

Cancer and Leo are statistically common for young men and women who win achievement or “future leader” recognitions. Cancer shines strong in youth but often has to work harder to get the same promise recognized later in their careers. Many are schoolteachers and caretakers, thrive in creative fields, or lean toward the entangled complexities of advanced mathematics or physics. Leos excel in positions of eminence including management, physicians (especially surgeons), and clergy. Though not strong in many kinds of music, Leo Suns tied with Aquarius for 1960s classic rock (complete with drama and mane). Leo Moon, in contrast, favors theater and music more broadly.

Virgo is usually at the heart of information flow and strategic planning, from librarians to computer professionals to military leaders, plus almost any service and support positions. Libra, while often distinguished in the arts and law, is almost uniquely undistinguished for sports. Scorpio is strong for composers, singers, and jazz musicians as well as more aggressive pursuits. Sagittarius adds actors and politics to the rest of its ambitious mix: in music, they tend to compose and conduct but sometimes are the shining voice or instrument virtuoso.

Capricorns are storytellers (which includes songwriting), but also in banking and bank management, religion, antiquities, and real estate. Aquarius leans to the sciences (especially space science: astronomers, astrologers, and astronauts, for example) but also boasts the most members of U.S. Congress, community volunteers, and activists (they seem to need an axe to grind, a cause to push). Pisces does anything for drama and passion, including, food, enchantment, music, and other entertainment (they tend to be divas); but they do not settle well into someone else’s routine nine-to-five. Aries is foremost political and driven by business, finance, and power.

As mentioned above, this list is by no means comprehensive. It is best to consider these a set of hints on how people respond to elements of sign symbology. Vocation selection is not best performed from a list but from knowing the person who is inquiring, their talents, the thrust of their lives, and their interests.