Nixx wrote:

It is hypothesised this is mainly due to a lack of affection or nurturing in childhood, i.e neglect or trauma. The person will be somewhat indifferent, callous, manipulative, preadatory, cold, narcissistic, sadistic, malicious, etc. (Is this the 'classic' description of the melancholic ?).

Is this yet another book written by an astrologer about Human Psychology (here Temperament) without the author bothering to study the subject first ?

You know, for personality and behavior, we don't have to use labels and descriptive systems if we don't want to. We can simply describe Fern's behavior: She's a sad little girl who feels isolated form her peers. She sees life as a series of disappointments and cries a lot. Her basic personality is Saturnian, is it not? In addition, tears are wet. So in the sidereal zodiac we have:

Saturn
Ascendant in the terms of Saturn
Moon in terms of Saturn
Ascendant lord Jupiter in fall in Saturn-ruled Capricorn
Sun, Moon's south node and MC are in the sign of the Sun's fall, Libra. (That is, sidereal Libra has a Saturnian tone.)
Saturn itself is in a sign inimical to itself, Mars-ruled Scorpio.

Pluto is with the Sun, but traditional astrologers don't use Pluto. However, psychologically Pluto can actually be very lonely and isolated, just like the actual body of Pluto itself on the fringes of the solar system. (This is from Garth Allen in the western sidereal system.)

Venus-Tears
Venus is traditionally accepted as wet. (Arabic cold and moist) Here it's in its fall in Virgo and squaring the ascendant. It's dispositor Mercury is in Scorpio with an unhappy Saturn.

Do we need to say anything else if we're looking for a personality immersed in sadness?

The title of this thread is "Traditional techniques in the Sidereal." I'm not one for philosophical arguments or endless discussion. Writing takes intense concentration and a lot of time, so I have to limit what I write on forums. I'm interested in practical demonstrations of how planets operate in the sidereal zodiac in light of their traditional placements in signs (domicile, exaltation, fall, triplicity, etc.) Fern's chart is a prime example of the negative effects of planets in signs inimical to themselves.

The introductory notes on the Qualities of this thread were for only one purpose: To clear up the misconception that the sidereal signs are similar to the tropical signs of the same name. That is, sidereal Aries is not like Tropical Aries. It's like the following Tropical sign, Taurus, and (as I've used them) the philosophical meanings of Aristotle's qualities have been used to partly describe the triplicities.

These may be found later to be inaccurate. But for the present they are serving their purpose in helping to describe sidereal signs.

I don't know how to make this point more clear.

Therese Hamilton wrote:
"Fern is an almost classic melancholic, according to her teachers. Thin, gangly and slightly stoop shouldered, she believes that life is a series of disappointments. She feels that no one understands her....During the 4th grade year, she cried almost every day because of one slight or another. She had no concept of empathy or how to be social..." (Anyone who has the book can read the full description.)

The traditional astrologer right off the bat is faced with a puzzle.

If I'm not wrong, Fern ascendant falls in Capricorn. and temperament is mostly given by Moon and Ascendant, it's not dependent on every planets.

Moreover Saturn is occidental to the Sun, so it's mostly dry (planetary qualities in Ptolemy are variable, depending on their position with respect to the Sun).

In addition Fern is an Autumn birth, which corresponds to melancholic quadrant too.

So it's easy to find an explication to Fern temperament in my opinion, even with tropical zodiac and the silly method. Melancholic without any doubt.

I want to add something.

To be more precise I don't know what you mean by Aristotlean qualities, but if you read the chapter dedicated in Ptolemy there is no mention to signs.

The rulers of the temperament are the planets who take the rulership on Moon, Ascendant, according the rules that Ptolemy gives elsewhere and the stars rising with the Ascendant or with the Moon.

And planets take their temperament from their position to the Sun. Lastly it is mentioned the quadrant.

I saw this method used a lot of time- there is no trace of signs. And planets should be evaluated, no Venus is cold and moist or Saturn cold and dry.



margherita

Margherita wrote:

I saw this method used a lot of time- there is no trace of signs. And planets should be evaluated, no Venus is cold and moist or Saturn cold and dry.

I agree with everything you say. I know, I am as surprised as you.

As you point out solar phase plays a major part in modifying the quality of the planets. Its a good point you make on the signs. Ptolemy is basically the originator of astrological temperament and discusses this in Book III
chapter 11. 'Of Bodily Form and Temperament.' While he assigns qualities to the signs earlier in the Tetrabiblos he doesn't use these at all in temperament assessment.

It seems that including the quality of the signs in temperament analysis may have been Galen's idea although I haven't read any translations of his astrological work. Quite simply because most of it has never been translated into English. Although there is a very expensive edition of Galen's De diebus decretoriis, (On Critical Days) by Glen M. Cooper. The standard medieval approach to temperament seems to be a cobbling together of elements of both systems.

For Ptolemy it is the the planets that are important in assessing temperament not the signs. We look at all the planetary rulers of the ASC and Moon to see which planets predominate. We also look at any planets or prominent fixed stars near the ascendant. Plus when it comes to the qualities it is the quality of the planets he considers not the signs. Although the planets have essential natures these go through some transformation due to solar phase.

Mark

Deb wrote:

Theresa, I think a problem with this thread was confusion over what you are looking for. By beginning with a question - whether traditional techniques were first used in sidereal charts? ? your post appeared to want to stimulate debate over this.

No, I meant that now we have an open door to test traditional techniques in the sidereal zodiac. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. As far as I could see in all the traditional literature out there, everyone discusses only the tropical.

Reading your latest post I now believe that you weren?t looking to generate debate so much as promote discussion amongst those with a more purely sidereal focus

.

Actually I was hoping that perhaps there might be one or two forum members who were curious about sidereal signs and might want to read something by someone who has worked with them for many years.

Discussion of sidereal perspectives are very welcome here, so please don?t feel the need to leave the forum as I would like to encourage you to keep up the posts.

Thank you, Deb. I will try to be clear in what I post. At present I'm mainly interested in highlighting planetary positions in the sidereal. I am not saying that tropical perspectives don't work for those who use them. I'm giving an alternate view. I'm really not so interested in debate as in friendly discussion. It seems that too often astrologers take an alternate view as an attack on their own perspective.

What might be helpful is to flag your interest in the exploration of sidereal concerns at the start of your posts,

I thought the title of the thread assumed that, but I can continue to emphasize that point.

Therese

Tom wrote:To me, Fern sounds as much phlegmatic as she does melancholic. Her body type sounds melancholic, the phlegmatic type tends to be fleshy, but crying at the drop of a hat and being unsocial is phlegmatic. Melancholic s are not always depressed (although they can be). They might be dour, but still have that dry sense of humor.

This is the problem with labels, and why I prefer a simple description of behavior over any particular classification system. This is one reason I left the psychological field after going to the trouble of getting an M.A. in psychological counseling. It seems that after all, the planets themselves are the best way to describe our personalities and behavior. That is my own belief and conclusion. The next step for me is to explore how the planets manifest in each sign of the zodiac. It gets complicated, of course, because we have aspects and dispositors to consider.

Therese

This is the problem with labels, and why I prefer a simple description of behavior over any particular classification system.

And the problem with having been exposed to modern astrology and to pop psychology is that we have a tendency to misunderstand the astrological concept of temperament. We automatically associate it with personality and a description of behavior. It's not, but I admit it is difficult to describe it without making it sound that way.

Temperament in astrology is a description of the body and the diseases it might be most susceptible to. Psychologically it is the base motivation which may or may not be pretty close to the personality. More often than not you have to look at the individual long and hard to see it. I use the same two examples over and over and I should probably switch but until that time think about these:

George S. Patton Old Blood and Guts (a nickname he despised, and in fact is technically sanguine) was not the fiery choleric that we see in the motion picture starring George C. Scott. He was melancholic with a good dose of sanguine. Melancholics persevere (which is why I don't see Fern as a melancholic temperament. She gives up and cries. That's phlegmatic). Melancholics are cold and a wartime field general has to stow the emotions in order to make sound decisions. His significator of manners, closer to the personality or what we see, was Mars. That's where the fire comes from.

The second example is tennis great John McEnroe. On the court he is as fiery a competitor as you'll find. His outbursts and apparently uncontrollable temper are pure choler. But Mac is a sanguine as befits his body type. He is older now and we all change in time, but his sanguine temperament is better noted with his seemingly effortless and precise analysis in his job as commentator. Also when he came up, tennis was less crash and bash and more of a thinking man's sport. It's no coincidence that Mac's favorite player was Rod Laver, a finesse player if there ever was one.

So astrological temperament is not simple behavior (not that all of our behavior is simple). It is that force that motivates us in one direction or in many directions. That force may manifest as personality, but it doesn't have to. It is deeper than personality, and in my very often less than humble opinion, it deserves a good deal of attention.

Mmargherita wrote:

I want to add something.

To be more precise I don't know what you mean by Aristotlean qualities, but if you read the chapter dedicated in Ptolemy there is no mention to signs.

I have not used Ptolemy as my reference, Margherita, but various writings of students of philosophy. Ptolemy isn't one of my favorite writers, so I don't refer to him often. I prefer Valens and the Arabic writers. But thank you for the tropical viewpoint, which is also well expressed in Greenbaum's book.

Therese

Tom wrote:

Temperament in astrology is a description of the body and the diseases it might be most susceptible to. Psychologically it is the base motivation which may or may not be pretty close to the personality. More often than not you have to look at the individual long and hard to see it.

This sounds very similar to India's ayurvedic system. It would be interesting to compare them. Perhaps it's been done. If one must "look at the individual long and hard to see it," then we can't make quick astrological judgments, and you, Tom, already disagree with Greenbaum regarding Fern.

Your post has been very helpful. Then, for myself, it's best to stay with simple psychology (not "pop" psychology since I'm trained in the field)...and I do often shudder at the casual statements astrologers make about personality and character based on the natal chart. Too many astrologers have had little or no training in the psychology they emphasize in their chart readings. And it seems if we're going to be concerned with temperment, then we should be professionally trained in that as well. We can't expect to see the whole picture from the natal chart. As human beings, we are complex creatures!

Here is an easy way to settle the Tropical v Sidereal zodiac debate:

Examine cardinal ingress figures preceding spectacular (usually violent) world events using both the tropical and sidereal zodiac.

The winner is the one which most freqently places malefics on the angles.

I will admit I have not done such a study, but I am very familiar with cardinal ingress figures using the tropical zodiac and I would be very surprised if the sidreal zodiac gave better results.

Stellarium wrote:I will admit I have not done such a study, but I am very familiar with cardinal ingress figures using the tropical zodiac and I would be very surprised if the sidreal zodiac gave better results.

I haven't done so either, but I would not consider it a very useful test of zodiacs. From a siderealist perspective, one chart would be cast for the Aries (etc) ingress, the other for the vernal equinox (etc); and the latter may well be considered an important point in time for mundane astrological purposes without making it define the zodiac. In other words, your test would perhaps show whether the tropical or sidereal year is most useful in mundane astrology, but the zodiacs would have to be tried in some other way.