I also think that temperament is confused with manners. Temperament is character, sufficient unto itself, but manners is personality;

Exactly and this is a common mistake. A couple examples. The volatile John McEnroe is sanguine, the explosive warrior George S. Patton is sanguine/melancholic. Some people exhibit their temperament and others do not.

No one claims 100% reliability with any temperament method. Sometimes it just doesn't work, but we also need to keep in mind that temperament is a very broad brush. Phlegmatics have flashes of hot temper now and again, and cholerics can have a soft side. A sanguine melancholic like Patton is clearly not sanguine or melancholic all of the time. And Dorian also points out that age matters. We all lose some choler as we age.

With Greenbaum's method, she gets 0 points Choleric, 5 points Sanguine, 3 points Melancholic and 2 points Phlegmatic.

What is missing is also interesting. How does the native, in this case, compensate for the lack of choler in her life? An astrological analysis would take that into consideration as well as any point system.

Tom

I have read Greenbaum's book so I understand the traditional approach to the Moon quarters in natal analysis.

Nevertheless, I am still wondering how to reconcile this with combustion? It seems in regards natal analysis the waxing quarters are heating and the waning quarters are cooling. This is based on the increasing/decreasing light of the Moon. However, in the concept of combustion we talk about all planets (including the Moon) being burned up by the heat of the Sun. On that basis why is not the waning phase heating the waxing phase cooling? If the Moon is essentially cool and wet surely it is better able to manifest this nature the further it is from the Sun?

Nevertheless, I am still wondering how to reconcile this with combustion? It seems in regards natal analysis the waxing quarters are heating and the waning quarters are cooling. This is based on the increasing/decreasing light of the Moon. However, in the concept of combustion we talk about all planets (including the Moon) being burned up by the heat of the Sun. On that basis why is not the waning phase heating the waxing phase cooling?

I?ll try an explanation for this. Hope it will be at least pertinent.

The light comes manly from Sun, and when acts in the material world generates the elements. The quantity of light is maximum in fire, then comes air, little in water (that?s way we generally are surprised in a benefic sense when the water of a lake is clear), the least permeable being earth. The elements by their material nature are deprived from heat of the light which comes only from the celestial sphere: first from the Sun, second from the Moon, and then from the rest of the planets.
Now from their movement and configurations, planets determine different variations of the qualities (this elements suggest me that we can talk about elements only in the sublunary sphere. To talk about the quality of a planet in my opinion is confusing, and according to the theory of elements wrong. Anyway this is another discussion).
Taking our case, when Moon is waning she is deprived little by little from the light of the Sun, so she gets cooler.
This is the first part.
The second one concerns another aspect of the relation between planets and Sun. When combust, the planets loose (maybe it?s not quite the right word) not only the capacity to transmit on its own the light received from Sun but loose also some of its power (so a modification in the virtue but also in power). So, Sun burns the planet in the sense that blocks and controls the virtue and power of that planet (in this context in my opinion is hard to tell that Sun should heat the Moon when combust, and that the virtue of Moon should be influenced in the sense of an increasing of heat. This is not correct in the logic of the system, in my opinion, because the Moon is also deprived from the ability to control its virtue, is in some way at the mercy of Sun). The process was described by some ancient authors like a process of purification.
I hope I was at least intelligible.

Nevertheless, I am still wondering how to reconcile this with combustion?

Take Morin's position: Combustion is a hoax. In the newly released translation of Volume 16 of Astrolgia Gallica, Morin goes through his usual explanation of why a concept (in this case combustion) is promulgated and then explains why it is false. For example he argues that everyone recognizes the power of the new Moon yet the new Moon is combust except when it is cazimi and since cazimi is "in the heart of the Sun" a planet should be weakest not strongest.

From there he notes that if the lord of the ASC is powerless because it is combust, then there must not be a lord ASC in that chart. Also if any planet is combust, and therefore powerless, it cannot act as dispositor. Since none of these things make sense, then, to Morin, combustion makes no sense.

Notice he is accepting the definition of combustion as resulting in a planet being powerless, and that definition is consistent with the visual idea of the Sun obliterating a planet and canceling its light. If we are not ready to abandon the idea of combustion, perhaps the definition needs to be re-thought.

Tom

This might help:

http://www.academyofastrology.org/artic ... estion.pdf

Take Morin's position: Combustion is a hoax.

I've learned from hard experience that having L1 Combust in a horary question is a serious red flag. This is one Consideration that's not to be taken lightly. So I can't agree with Morin on this one.

Tara

Hi Tara,

I've learned from hard experience that having L1 Combust in a horary question is a serious red flag. This is one Consideration that's not to be taken lightly. So I can't agree with Morin on this one.

But Morin would have pointed out that horary is a hoax He included it among his list of "Arab fictions."

Centuries of experience would indicate that combustion has an effect. However, as Morin points out, the definition of combustion as rendering the planet "powerless" is illogical and contrary to practice. If Lord ASC is powerless, then there is no Lord ASC. If Jupiter is in Taurus combust then any planets in Sagittarius or Pisces have no dispositor and any house cusps with those signs have no ruler. This is, of course, senseless.

A more rational position is probably somewhere between these two extremes. Like you said, it's a "red flag."

Tom

As combustion is not the theme of the thread, I will try to keep it quick.

"However, as Morin points out, the definition of combustion as rendering the planet "powerless" is illogical and contrary to practice. If Lord ASC is powerless, then there is no Lord ASC. If Jupiter is in Taurus combust then any planets in Sagittarius or Pisces have no dispositor and any house cusps with those signs have no ruler. This is, of course, senseless."

In my own practice, what I do is:

in horary, power is everything, so if quesited or querent is ruled by an combusted planet, then we have a problem ! UNLESS combustion makes sense in any other way (example of buying a horse by Lilly).

in natal, a combusted planet usually means that we should look at other planet for rulership. For example, if Jupiter is combusted, we could use venus as ruler of pisces, or maybe even a planet in pisces which have dignity, for example mars in his triplicy and terms.

Hi Tom,

But Morin would have pointed out that horary is a hoax.

Oh I would love to hear more about Morin's reasoning for the assertion that horary is a hoax.

Seriously.

Tara

Hi Tara,

That would be off topic, but very briefly, Morin was a natural philosopher. He believed that astrology was part of nature and that astrology worked through natural means. In other words the planets actually did something. This is not possible with horary astrology. The planets don't cause the result of the question. You are free to dispute his outlook if you wish and many would, but that is his reasoning.

Similarly, he had no use for profections, or the so-called "Arabic Parts," except Fortuna. They do not exist in nature. Neither do the terms and faces, so he disregarded them.

From Book 21 of Astrologia Gallica:

Ancient astrologers often based their judgments either on purely fictitious assumptions, contrary to nature of things, or on certain elements which correspond to the natural order, but which were poorly understood, and even more poorly applied. In the first group one would have to include what were called "terms" decans," and "faces" and also the attribution of special properties to various degrees of the Ecliptic. In addition to these are the annual, monthly, and daily progressions (i.e. what we would call profections - tc), as well as the other fictions introduced into Astrology by the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Arabs."

There is a direct disparagement of horary, but I don't have time to look for it at the moment.

Before anyone swoons keep two things in mind: 1) Morin did not have access to as much history of astrology as we do, therefore he things he says about the "Arabs" might be and often are historically inaccurate. 2) His astrology is as good as anyone's. Morin thinks about everything and takes nothing for granted. Whereas Project Hindsight began to question Ptolemy in the 1980s, Morin did it in the 1600s. We've been told over and over again of the importance of Cardan and we accept it despite almost nothing of his writings exists in English. Ditto Bonatti. This is not to argue that our high opinion of those and others is unsupportable, but rather that it is unexamined (Although thanks to Ben Dykes we can now examine Bonatti). We may not always agree with Morin's conclusions, but he always makes us think.

Tom

Thanks, Tom. I appreciate your taking the time to explain Morin's position. I take it he did subscribe to the essential dignities of the planets as far as rulership/detriment and exaltation/fall positions go? Robert Corre once said in a workshop that, according to Morin, planets in their fall were "as if benumbed." As a Libra Sun I was stunned/benumbed!

Tara