The quotations Paul made - many thanks to you, Paul! - and I refer to are especially these:

Paul wrote:Umar Al Tabiri - On a marriage union, 227

And if the querent were male, adjoin the Sun to his significators, and make him a partner in the signification; but if the querent were a woman, adjoin Venus with her significators, and make her a partner in the signification.

Al Kindi - On establishing a marriage union, 228

Moreover a lunar application with Venus, and she being received by Venus, moreover an application of the Moon with the Lord of the seventh, are asked to be noted. For all of these convey that the husband's vow and devotion to marry is present. But if the Lord of the seventh or Venus herself would apply with the lord of the Ascendant or with the Moon, or if the Lord of the seventh [would do so] with the Moon, the nuptial union agrees with the fiancee's wishes.

johannes susato wrote:Indeed, there is a contradiction because, besides some other points, especially that point of WCA quoted by you above, is erroneous as can be seen by the quotations Paul was so kind to make here (see the next post, please).

...

The quotations Paul made - many thanks to you, Paul! - and I refer to are especially these:

Paul wrote:Umar Al Tabiri - On a marriage union, 227

And if the querent were male, adjoin the Sun to his significators, and make him a partner in the signification; but if the querent were a woman, adjoin Venus with her significators, and make her a partner in the signification.

Al Kindi - On establishing a marriage union, 228

Moreover a lunar application with Venus, and she being received by Venus, moreover an application of the Moon with the Lord of the seventh, are asked to be noted. For all of these convey that the husband's vow and devotion to marry is present. But if the Lord of the seventh or Venus herself would apply with the lord of the Ascendant or with the Moon, or if the Lord of the seventh [would do so] with the Moon, the nuptial union agrees with the fiancee's wishes.

joining in signification is not the same as joining in rulership. co-significators can tell you more about the situation, the temperaments of the people involved, the state of mind of the querent and the quesited, etc. but we still need to look at the primary significators (house rulers) to understand what, if anything, will happen.

we can go in circles on this all day long. the point I'm attempting to make it to keep it clear, keep it focused. I see no value in trying to pull in Venus and the Sun as co-significators in every relationship question, if for no other reason than the mere practicalities involved in doing so.

when we look at how the Sun and Venus were used historically (and I'm talking across the entire tradition, dating into ancient Babylonian times), we see they were used together and not independently. this quote from Umar al-Tabiri does not contradict what I'm saying. he's telling us to look at the Sun and Venus for more information. he is not instructing us to judge perfection if Sun or Venus are in favorable aspect to L1 or L7 -- and that's because the Sun and Venus are permitted to co-signify, but not co-rule. they have no say on the outcome of the chart, but instead give us the background information we need to better leverage primary significations.

even in al-Kindi's quote we see that Sun and Venus don't promise perfection, but instead give insight into the general tenor of the situation. al-Kindi says the Moon connected to Venus shows consent for marriage and union, concepts that Venus naturally rules. if the Moon was connected to Mars, al-Kindi may have said there was intent to engage in quarrels and arguments; to Saturn, crookedness and covetousness, and so on.

johannes susato wrote:Had your question not been to explain why this contact or communication had been come about?

So, how do you explain this other than by using Venus, here co-sigificator of the female quesited? Do you really see "another way" that "the chart needs to show the communication"?

My personal view on this is that the question wasn't a question of marriage nor even of coupling in the normal sense of the word, it was at a stage much more premature to that. The question was, to remind ourselves "If I send correspondence via an electronic medium, will she respond to me? Yes or No? ?" (Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:05 pm ).

Well for me, asking about whether or not to contact someone is a massive jump away from the context for the Sun and Venus that Bonatti and the older authors I had listed are using it. They were examining a sense of coupling or of the affairs of 'man' and 'wife'. That's very different to how I understand the question here.

I'm a little bit confused, admittedly, by some of the posts and what's being examined, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but I really do not see any reason to use the Sun and Venus at all. Is this not essentially the point that Wca is making? Just because we are asking about something relating to a man and a woman, does that mean we need to invoke the sun and venus for every single instance? Or is this not all just supporting testimony as alluded by Bonatti showing Lord 7 involving itself with the Sun as indicating, not the man or husband or sexuality (as has been suggested here) but just some other guy who is an authority figure or a kingly attribution to him such as the sun would naturally signify? Clearly it is not true that anytime we are asking about a man or woman that we need to invoke the sun and venus as their co-signifiers. They can show other things. These seem to be more supporting testimony then.

So when we return to consider the actual question - will she reply to me, yes or no - do we really think this is within the same context and spirit as Umar's use of Sun and Venus in indicating intention with regards marriage vows? Because I don't. If this is the essential point that Wca is making - namely that just because a man and woman are involved in the question doesn't mean we ought to bring in venus and the sun - then personally I'm in agreement and I do not see how the quotes I used contradicts that.

I do think that some authors did look to Lord 7 with venus or the sun, as being noteworthy in providing some information or context, but I do not think it necessarily indicates they used this as a primary way to show perfection of a marriage matter, but instead indicates some intent or desire perhaps.

First off, I would like to thank Paul and WCA for pointing to examples. And BlueMoon and Johannes for their contributions. There's much to digest, and I'm certain that I'll be reviewing these posts multiple times, and vetting past charts against these techniques.

The question was, to remind ourselves "If I send correspondence via an electronic medium, will she respond to me? Yes or No? ?" (Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:05 pm ).

Yes. This is the question asked. I'll add another qualifier: the querent in his "heart" knew that he would contact the quesited.

What the chart appears to be showing is an answer to the querent's state of mind.

BlueMoon wrote:...we see that there is a sexual/primal attraction between querent and quesited...

The querent also knows what he needs to do to make the relationship work on a physical or emotional level if he choses to go down that path. He needs to decide whether he is willing to invest his time and energy.

That's my caveat with Sun/Venus == Manhood/Womanhood analogy. Frawley is a proponent of using good sense. It's common for this particular dynamic of mutual desire to exist between young couples. Reading it in a chart seems like a cop out.

BlueMoon wrote:Nor is there application between the main significators (NOT using Sun and Venus).

This is the reason that I posted the chart. According to Frawley, you look to an L1/L7 application for communication between the querent and the other person. It becomes an L3 matter only if L1/L7 mails a letter. This was electronic communication. So, do we look at L3 (Saturn Rx and Sun)? Or is the Sun always his libido? Or is the Sun simply another man?

wca wrote:you want a historical chart where some respected ancient astrologer shows L7 moving to Venus and says, "the quesited is pursuing another."

Yes. I was looking for such case.

Just so everyone is aware, I am not picking on Frawley. In this chart, the Sun is at 26 Gem 42. Had Saturn Rx been at 26 Gem 42, he'd say, "She's with an 'older guy' by virtue of the conjunction and being in H7. If it were Mars, a 'younger guy'."

I say, "So, why not the Sun as another virile young man?"

wca wrote:...then we look to house rulerships to get more info. if Libra's on the cusp of the 3rd, the quesited is interested in a neighbor. or if Taurus is on the MC, perhaps the quesited is in some affair with his/her boss.

Yes. This is what I've come across with Bonatti with non-H7 questions, and in Holden's translation of Abu Ali Al-Khayyat's natal charts. But modern practitioners from the Barclay tree, suggest avoiding the use of house signification or turned house signification in horaries. I'm not familiar enough with Lilly to suggest that a perceived increase in the use of general signification spawns from his techniques, and their re-introduction through Barclay.

Paul wrote:I presume you are looking for where the focus is on relationships and venus or the sun represent someone else, and not the querent and quesited?

Yes. This is correct.

Paul wrote: ...So if the Sun receives Lord 7/Moon then the SUN is interested in her...

This is what I was looking for. Rather than assigning the Sun to the querent, it is assigned to "another magnate".

Paul wrote:It also shows the importance of reception, and which way it works, again, unlike Frawley. (sorry BlueChip)

Frawley actually requires three things: accidental dignity showing the ability or willingness to act; reception (disposition of one of the planets) showing the urge to act; aspect the occasion to act. The combo of the last two seems to be the widely accepted definition of reception to which you're referring.

Paul wrote:Not sure if my quotes help or make it muddier

Some of us enjoy a good mud bath!

wca wrote:there is no need to keep this notion that the Sun is the only planet that can signify a man that could distract L7.

This was the second type of chart that I wanted to examine.

In this chart, if it's simply a turned H3 matter, the quesited is blind to the harm her response will cause; the response she keeps close to the vest will burn her.

johannes susato wrote:Had your question not been to explain why this contact or communication had been come about?

This question is what I expected to see. L7 applying to L1, or as Paul indicated on Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:42 pm, "we might try to find other ways for them to connect like translations/collections of light. If that doesn't happen we might want them to be in each other's house."

But, L1 is in L8, and the Sun is in L7. The horary question can be further adjusted. My question is, "How is the Sun interpreted by other ancient astrologers?"

johannes susato wrote:So, how do you explain this other than by using Venus, here co-sigificator of the female quesited?

I eluded to this before. The contact was a foregone conclusion for the querent. The chart is showing his unease or concern with contacting her.

johannes susato wrote:Do you really see "another way" that "the chart needs to show the communication"?

Yes.

• L9 applying to L1, L2, or the Moon;
  L3 separating from L7, or L8. But, in this chart, L7 applies to L9;
  L3 in H7, H8;
  L9 in Asc, H2

Paul wrote:I'm a little bit confused, admittedly, by some of the posts and what's being examined, so maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but I really do not see any reason to use the Sun and Venus at all.

I apologize. I was just exploring possibilities.

Most horary charts I encounter from modern practitioners, portray the Sun as a male querent's/quesited's virility (to which I make exception).

In this chart, based on feedback from the querent, the Sun seems to be a turned H3 significator - she's keeping stuff from me, and it's damaging to her.

Natural signification suggests that the Sun is "another man". I could've easily read the chart, "You can contact her, but she's with another guy."

I was looking for delineations of charts from historical astrologers where Sun is "another guy", or Venus is "another girl", or indicative of the house matter the Sun or Venus signifies.

I appreciate the information and dialogue between you and WCA. It is helpful to me. The other commentary that I provided is due to requested scoping. If it lead to deviation from my initial inquiry, I'll blame it on Sun-stroke

Chip wrote:

"That's my caveat with Sun/Venus == Manhood/Womanhood analogy. Frawley is a proponent of using good sense. It's common for this particular dynamic of mutual desire to exist between young couples. Reading it in a chart seems like a cop out."

I disagree. Regardless of age, 'mutual desire' is not a given in a relationship. In my own relationships, I have often had desire but not a strong emotional connection, and I have also had an emotional connection without desire. According to Frawley, the horary will reveal the type of connection(s) in a relationship horary.

Chip wrote:
"This is the reason that I posted the chart. According to Frawley, you look to an L1/L7 application for communication between the querent and the other person. It becomes an L3 matter only if L1/L7 mails a letter. This was electronic communication. So, do we look at L3 (Saturn Rx and Sun)? Or is the Sun always his libido? Or is the Sun simply another man?"

That is why I asked 'what is the question behind the question?"
If we don't know the REAL question, then we cannot know what the Sun represents in this chart. I'm not sold on the fact that the querent was simply asking about text messages.

BM