Chip wrote:If you could point me to one or two sources, it would be welcome. It's more of an inquiry concerning Lord of House vs. General Significator.

I'll leave it to Paul to provide references if he has them handy. I say this primarily because I don't have an example where the distinction is clearly put down in the context of the same chart, though I hope they exist. perhaps Paul has examples.

what I will say is that any horary text will tell you to use house rulers and not general significators when assigning significators. the first line of instruction is usually some variant on, "take the first house and its ruler to signify the querent, and the house of the matter and its ruler to signify the quesited." it's never, "take L7 and the Sun if the querent asks after a male, Venus if a woman." so there's your first clue that using significators based on house cusps is the intended method for straightforward judgment.

but I understand what you're asking for -- you want a historical chart where some respected ancient astrologer shows L7 moving to Venus and says, "the quesited is pursuing another." I don't have that, hopefully Paul can advise.

what I can direct you towards is pg. 313 in which Lilly guides the astrologer on how to tell if a wife has been unfaithful. here he says if the Moon (the natural significator of wives, but don't get distracted by this) is joined to a masculine planet -- namely, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun -- the woman is tempted by some man. if to Mercury or Venus, tempted by "some woman for a man." the paragraph goes on, but the point here is that planets naturally rule ideas/concepts/types of people and describe a situation as a result. if L7 isn't connected to L1, but instead to Venus who has general rulership over what's "desirable," then we have reason to assume that the quesited is entranced by another regardless of gender. there is no need to keep this idea of Sun = man, Venus = woman. Venus signifies desire, so if L7 apples to Venus and Venus isn't L1 we probably have a problem. 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.

this really isn't different than looking at any other significator in the chart, seeing what planet it applies to and drawing signification out of that. querent wants a job but her significator is applying to Saturn? okay, well expect delays and disappointments. querent wants reconciliation with his brother, but both apply to Mars? expect arguments, continuation of discord. querent wants to be in a relationship with this other person, but their significator is in tight application to Venus? good possibility that the quesited is already involved with another, or wants to be.

I think we're over-complicating this issue because of a frequently misunderstood aphorism involving fertility cycles measured by the Sun and Venus. I that addressed in my first response.

so my advice: assign significators based on house rulership, see who they are applying to, look at what houses THAT planet rules, mix that with what it signifies generally (temperament and/or types of people), and the story starts to reveal itself.

I hope this helps. I feel like I could have made my points more plainly, but I'm having difficulty being concise and articulate today. if you have clarifying questions or comments, let me know and I will respond.

BlueMoon wrote:If we were to ask John Frawley, he would say 'yes'. He teaches this method in his horary course. He uses the Sun and Venus to represent the more sexual/primal forces of Man and Woman.

we should concern ourselves much less with the introduced techniques of contemporaries and instead focus on the writings passed down in classical sources. this kind of concern doesn't hold true in all traditions, but astrology nearly fell away in the 19th and 20th centuries and so we must always question whether or not a contemporary source adequately understands the context of the classical texts. (consider Frawley's mistaken take on reception.) the need for challenging our sources is doubly true when we consider how few traditional texts are available today, versus what was available in and prior to the 17th century.

BlueMoon wrote:In your specific horary, if judged using the techniques of John Frawley, we see that there is a sexual/primal attraction between querent and quesited. The Moon is in the exaltation sign of Venus, and Venus is in the exaltation sign of the Moon.

I hope this is not how Frawley would put this, because it would be yet another concern for me on his technique. surely it makes more sense to say the Moon is in Pisces and Venus is in her own sign. from what I can tell of the original chart (and in the interest of transparency I haven't followed every post on this thread fully) Venus doesn't rule the querent or quesited. and as I explained in my first response, Venus is not co-significator for the quesited or querent if she's not 1) ruling their house, or 2) on their cusp. this Sun/Venus thing is quite misunderstood and misrepresented, so some research on Venus's synodic cycles and how that informed Babylonian belief on general fertility cycles should be in order.

furthermore, being in each other's exaltations doesn't equate to "sexual/primal attraction" as asserted in the above quote. at least, I have not seen any traditional literature delineating arrangement in exaltations to that effect and certainly haven't seen it consistently hold in practice. I think it's more accurate to say that expectations are too high on both sides, and there is a certain amount of arrogance of one's own status and stature.

BlueMoon wrote:Furthermore, the Sun is in the sign of Mercury. Plenty of primal attraction here. From both querent and quesited to each other. Since the Sun, primal force of querent, is in the sign of Mercury (quesited), JF might say that the querent is more attracted to quesited than she is to him. Since Mercury, quesited, will conjunct Sun (sexual/primal significator of querent), JF might say that thru his texting/contact with quesited, they may come together again (and perhaps have sex).

I take issue with all of this too, based on the points made above. the Sun is not anyone's co-significator, and even if he was this is quite a stretch.

BlueMoon wrote:However, when looking at the non sexual/primal significators, there does not seem to be enough reception to move this relationship forward. Nor is there application between the main significators (NOT using Sun and Venus).

planets we should not be using anyway. (italics mine.)

BlueMoon wrote:Although the querent and quesited may come together again, there is no future for this relationship.

What if we take out the use of Sun and Venus as significators of the sex/primal force of querent and quesited?

If we do that - what can we say about the conjunction of Mercury (quesited) and the Sun?
Can the Sun represent a man (in general)?
Or does the Sun only represent the 9th house (turned 3rd)?
(Of course, if the 'Man' is a professor by profession, then the symbolism would be quite fitting.)

I'm not sure I follow you here. the Sun rules the 9th, so I see the connection to professors, but Mercury's application to the Sun wouldn't indicate that the person signified by Mercury is a professor. aspect don't describe. planets, house rulerships, natural significations describe. aspects show motion and action, so there to be a fundamental flaw in the logic here.

BlueMoon wrote:This chart can be a good example of whether Sun/Venus represent the sexual/primal force of querent and quesited by finding out if
a) the querent agrees that there is a strong attraction between querent and quested (and perhaps he feels a bit more attracted to her than visa versa)
b) if indeed they did come together after he texted her, and if perhaps they had sex.

I'm afraid it won't be a "good example" of that at all. the querent asked the question -- it follows natural logic that he has interest, and that he's more interested, because he did the asking. correlation does not imply causation. important that we remember that.

BlueMoon wrote:If the querent does not think they have a mutual physical attraction, and if they did not come together -
Then it would be helpful to find out if the quesited had come together with another man.

If querent and quesited did not come together, and quesited did not meet another man, then perhaps the Sun in this horary is 'the Sun' and Mercury combust is the end of the relationship.

(italics mine.) well, regardless of how this works out you can't just dance around Mercury's combust state. combustion indicates Mercury is hiding something, or is overpowered by some authority figure/situation/concern/demand, or is disingenuous and morally shaky. the Sun is always the Sun, and when he combusts he combusts. I don't know why we're trying to fill a book full of new ways to interpret this when the standard has served astrologers well for millennia.

BlueMoon, see my other posts across the last two pages. I feel that I've addressed the topics sufficiently enough to show why I disagree with the assertions made in your most recent post.

Chip wrote: Thanks for responding. If you could point me to one or two sources, it would be welcome. It's more of an inquiry concerning Lord of House vs. General Significator.

I'm looking for a relationship chart where the Sun or Venus represent a house matter rather than secondary signification. Or the Sun is "another man" and Venus is "another woman".

Well I'm still not entirely sure what's being looked of here - 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?

Before that, let me clarify something and say I agree with nearly everything Wca posted here. The general 'formula' as Wca says is to see if Lord 1 (or the Moon) looks to Lord 7. Now if that doesn't happen, 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 then we might think, okay, it's not going to happen, so what is happening instead.

Generally Venus represents women and the Sun can represent men. I don't necessarily disagree that this can be in a sexualised way, though it is not limited to that in my opinion. This is in the same way that Mercury can rule letters and Saturn can rule older people. So if say Lord 7 is not aspecting Lord 1, but is instead aspecting Mars or the Sun or other masculine planets (as Wca said) then perhaps the quesited is interested in another man who has the bearing or semblance of what those planets may describe. He mentions Lilly, but this predates Lilly and can be found in Bonatti too, and possibly the arabic/persian authors too.

One place I would place reservation on Wca's thoughts, is that I do think the ancient authors aligned Sun with Man and Venus with woman, whilst I see this in a general sense of natural signification I take it to mean, when it comes to perfection, that this occurs with one another - as Wca's first post here. However when it comes to some other planet joining to the Sun, it typically means some other man, or with Venus as with some other woman. Of course venus is also desire in general but I do think the ancient authors saw this as being women in particular.

Not sure if I understand Wca right here, but if I do, then this is one place I would take minor disagreement - I say minor because I still also agree with everything else within the context of what he's saying.

Okay so let me post some quotations from older sources.

Bonatti showing natural signification, p445

If however it were the Sun instead of Venus, namely so that he aspected the Lord of the 7th or the Moon, she loves and has loved some magnate from among those who are thought as fit for a kingdom; if with reception, he did the deed with her; if without reception, he does not care about here

So we see in cases like these, within the context of "If a woman is doing with someone else besides her husband" that we can use the planets as natural significators - the Sun naturally ruling men of a particular office or authority. Note that it is not whether one sits in someone's sign which shows interest (as per Frawley) but rather whether the SUN receives her or not. So if the Sun receives Lord 7/Moon then the SUN is interested in her. It is not the other way around and Frawley appears to mix this up. Also note (BlueChip) Bonatti does not say anything about sexual attraction here - clearly the Sun, whilst it can in certain contexts show something like that, is not primarily about that.

The same is true of the other planets, Mercury being some young literate person or mercantile individuals like money changers etc. etc. so it's not unique to the Sun. Jupiter showing some noble etc.

Now you notice the "instead of Venus" - earlier we look to see what happens if Lord 7 or the Moon was with Venus. We see that it shows the woman is interested in other women:

if indeed the Lord of the 7th or the Moon were joined to Venus with reception, from any aspect, or even by a trine or a sextile, whether with reception or without reception, the woman does not care for men, but mixes with women and uses them improperly

We see similar ideas through other authors. Clearly Bonatti really does see Venus as natural significator of women, and not just desire generally. This is the only place I disagree with Wca.

The thing to notice here is that when it comes to the Sun aspecting Lord 7, we didn't say "and they live happily ever after" - the assumption here is that the Sun is not the husband (or the man who is the querent). We also didn't pretend that when we look to the sun and venus it is just the sexuality of man and woman.

So Sun really is Man, and Venus really is Woman. However, that isn't to say that Wca is wrong in saying Venus is also desire generally, or, rather the desire for relationship in particular. It is.

First to clarify that sun is man and venus is woman. This is what I thought Chip was looking for originally - an indication in ancient authors that the Sun and Venus were secondary significators for a man and woman in general.

(page numbers below are from the Book of the Nine Judges)

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.

This was what I originally thought you were looking for Chip, but I'm not clear. This goes back to Wca's original post here.

To reiterate it again:

Al Kindi - On establishing marriage union, 229

No less does the application of the Sun with Venus bring about nuptials, particularly while the Sun would obtains some dignity in the Ascendant.

Really, how I understand all this is that the Sun and Venus are primal significators for Man and Wife. That isn't to say Venus isn't relationsihps generally or desire for one, it is. But for the ancients Sun and Venus are reserved generally for indicating the concept of the natural dance, reflected in the sky, as per Wca's first post, that a man and woman do to court one another and provide a sacred kind of union such that a marriage implies, one where ultimately they never separate but merely dance back and forth from one another. This idea is I think central to what the ancient authorities mean when they look at Sun and Venus.

But some authors have taken this a step further and seen that if, say Lord 1 applies to Venus, or indeed Venus applies to Lord 1, then this is an indication of the desire to marry. I take this is as a point which both Johannes and Wca made in different ways - Wca clarified that this Sun-Venus dance is between them and not between other planets, and Johannes posted that some other planet can aspect Venus as co-significator. Chip sees this as a contradiction in post Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 5:16 pm. If however we see Venus as significator of the desire for marriage or the potential of the woman as wife, an idea implied in Wca's later post, then we make sense of the problem. When it comes to the dance between Sun and Venus perfection through them implies a marriage, when it comes to some other planet aspecting Venus, it shows desire for the marriage. The below quote also highlights, incidentally, that application is what implies whose wishes are achieved or who desires who - unlike, again, Frawley. It also shows the importance of reception, and which way it works, again, unlike Frawley. (sorry BlueChip)

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.

This idea of seeing Venus as the potential wife or the desire for a wife here. Which isn't to contradict Wca's ultimate point that Venus cannot also signify a man. Within another context bonatti describes Venus as describing a certain young man (pg 499). But in the context of relationships, venus is particularly women, and sun particularly men.


Not sure if my quotes help or make it muddier. It seems clear in my own mind that generally Sun and Venus are man and wife taken together, but applications of Venus to Lord 1 or Lord 1 to Venus (and presumably the same with the Sun) should also be considered noteworthy.

Either way, what I had originally set out to find quotes for was that the idea of Sun and Venus being Man and Wife does predate Lilly.

Paul wrote:One place I would place reservation on Wca's thoughts, is that I do think the ancient authors aligned Sun with Man and Venus with woman, whilst I see this in a general sense of natural signification I take it to mean, when it comes to perfection, that this occurs with one another - as Wca's first post here. However when it comes to some other planet joining to the Sun, it typically means some other man, or with Venus as with some other woman. Of course venus is also desire in general but I do think the ancient authors saw this as being women in particular.

we are absolutely aligned that classical authors shown Sun to be a man, Venus to be a woman. you may yet disagree with me, but I should explain my point just a little more because I left it a bit messy. here was the full paragraph for context:

wca wrote:what I can direct you towards is pg. 313 in which Lilly guides the astrologer on how to tell if a wife has been unfaithful. here he says if the Moon (the natural significator of wives, but don't get distracted by this) is joined to a masculine planet -- namely, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun -- the woman is tempted by some man. if to Mercury or Venus, tempted by "some woman for a man." the paragraph goes on, but the point here is that planets naturally rule ideas/concepts/types of people and describe a situation as a result. if L7 isn't connected to L1, but instead to Venus who has general rulership over what's "desirable," then we have reason to assume that the quesited is entranced by another regardless of gender. there is no need to keep this idea of Sun = man, Venus = woman. Venus signifies desire, so if L7 apples to Venus and Venus isn't L1 we probably have a problem.

I had two intended points.

wca wrote:there is no need to keep this idea of Sun = man, Venus = woman.

1) L7 applying to Saturn, Jupiter and Mars could just as easily show another man in the picture. there is no need to keep this notion that the Sun is the only planet that can signify a man that could distract L7.

wca wrote:if L7 isn't connected to L1, but instead to Venus who has general rulership over what's "desirable," then we have reason to assume that the quesited is entranced by another regardless of gender ... Venus signifies desire, so if L7 apples to Venus and Venus isn't L1 we probably have a problem.

2) planets have natural signification that cannot be dismissed. Venus is a feminine sign and nearly always signifies a woman. we see that historically and we see that today. that said, she can get herself positioned essentially (by zodiacal degree) and accidentally (phase, aspect, location, motion) in such a way that she becomes a more masculine kind of Venus. (perhaps we should say "less feminine.")

consider a chart where we ask, "Will I have a boy or a girl?" while Venus ruling the 5th is a particularly strong testimony that the querent will have a girl, we need to be sure that Venus is appropriately positioned in the chart to actually represent a girl. testimonies would point to a boy if, say, Venus was in a masculine sign, in a masculine quadrant, in applying aspect to a masculine planet, etc. in the latter case we might then say the child was represented by Venus because of the querent's disposition to the child, and may well say something about the temperament of that baby (temperate, delicate, endearing, with lovely features etc.).

hope that explains more clearly. apologies for my lazy wording earlier.

WCA wrote
"BlueMoon, see my other posts across the last two pages. I feel that I've addressed the topics sufficiently enough to show why I disagree with the assertions made in your most recent post."

Yes, you have. I appreciate the sharing of your knowledge as I'm sure the many followers of this forum.

My post was not meant as a rebuttal. Since we are discussing the use of Sun/Venus in a relationship horary, and since the originator of this topic mentions Frawley in his original post, I thought I'd share with the members of this forum what I learned from John Frawley's horary course when interpreting a relationship horary.

This does not mean that I agree or disagree with Frawley's techniques.
I was simply 'sharing', in the spirit of this forum.

BlueMoon wrote: My post was not meant as a rebuttal. Since we are discussing the use of Sun/Venus in a relationship horary, and since the originator of this topic mentions Frawley in his original post, I thought I'd share with the members of this forum what I learned from John Frawley's horary course when interpreting a relationship horary.

This does not mean that I agree or disagree with Frawley's techniques.
I was simply 'sharing', in the spirit of this forum.

Thanks BlueMoon, it's always interesting to see how different astrologers tackle the same issues.

wca wrote: 1) L7 applying to Saturn, Jupiter and Mars could just as easily show another man in the picture. there is no need to keep this notion that the Sun is the only planet that can signify a man that could distract L7.

2) planets have natural signification that cannot be dismissed. Venus is a feminine sign and nearly always signifies a woman. we see that historically and we see that today. that said, she can get herself positioned essentially (by zodiacal degree) and accidentally (phase, aspect, location, motion) in such a way that she becomes a more masculine kind of Venus. (perhaps we should say "less feminine.")

Right, I'm with you, I totally agree with you.

BlueMoon wrote:This does not mean that I agree or disagree with Frawley's techniques.
I was simply 'sharing', in the spirit of this forum.

I did wonder if you were representing another's views or your own, which is why I was careful not to say "the assertions YOU made," but rather "the assertions made." at any rate, thanks for clarifying. like Paul said, exposure to the techniques of others is helpful, if for no other reason than to help us challenge our own understanding of what we think we know.

thanks BlueMoon.

Chip wrote:

johannes susato wrote:Only when you use the co-significators, you get the right answer 'Yes' to the question of a possible contact, i.e. the sextile of the essentially strong Jupiter (his significator) applied to by the essentially strong Venus (her co-signficator).

Your statement contradicts WCA:

it is also critical to note that in these Sun/Venus references, the relationship under scrutiny is exclusively the one between Venus and the Sun. no other planet is considered.

I tend to agree with WCA's point. So, the chart needs to show the communication in another way. But, what the chart appears to be showing is the mindset of the querent. It looks like it's answering the question, "Why do you NOT want to contact her? What are you afraid of?"

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).

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"?

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.