It was very good of him to respond. For one thing we can see more clearly now what his argument is, and I also realise that the point I?m arguing is different to any point David Little is making. It?s not, as I understood it to be before, that he was claiming to have seen sources that associated with elements with the astrological triplicities in a different arrangement to the one we are familiar with, but only that the qualities attributed to the elements (ie., whether air is considered a warm and moist element or a cold element warmed by fire and moistened by water), varied in the early classical period. That?s more likely. My disbelief was that he had seen a pre-Socratic source claiming to associate the sanguine humour with the fire triplicity of Aries, Leo and Sagittarius. That?s untenable for a number of reasons.

The reason I was confused was a misunderstanding over Ficina?s comment:

According to the author of the article, astrologers have got the relationships between temperaments and elements all wrong. Having studied his Mappa Mundi, I agree with him!

For example, why do we associate Sanguine with Air, when Sanguine is hot and moist (i.e. Fire + Water), whereas Air is cold? Jupiter is the hot and moist planet, through which the Sanguine temperament expresses itself best. Therefore it should be through a Fire or Water sign, NOT an Air sign.

And the fact that Pete also said he?s ?never felt completely comfortable when associating Jupiter/ Sanguine to Air?.

But reading the article again I realise this argument about Sanguine being more appropriate through fire than air isn?t expressed by David Little. It doesn?t help that he used the phrase: ?The sanguine temperament (fire) usually has a hot, moist, ??, but previous to this he explains ?the hot sanguine blood humour is made up predominately of the fire element but has a secondary part of moist water?. And in his table he defines Sanguine as hot and moist in the same way as a medieval astrologer would. In fact the essence of his Mappa Mundi is no different from the standard astrological diagram that associates elements with qualities:
That diagram appears in David Plant?s article on Lilly and the Alchemist ( http://www.skyscript.co.uk/alchemist.html )where he writes:

Alchemy's theoretical foundation rests upon the doctrines of Aristotle who taught that the basis of the material world is a prima materia, or prime, chaotic matter without form, from which all the limitless varieties of life arise and into which they can all again be dissolved. The simplest distinguishing forms are the four qualities: heat, dryness, moisture and cold. From paired combinations of these qualities arise the four elements: earth (cold and dry), water (cold and moist), air (hot and moist) and fire (hot and dry). And from the blending in certain proportions of the four elements, all the specific substances of the material world are created. It seemed self-evident that the elements were interchangeable through the agency of the four qualities. When water is heated it becomes steam; thus when the quality of heat replaces the cold quality in elemental water it turns into elemental air.

Regardless of whether air is considered warm and moist, or intrinsically cold but warmed by fire and moistened by water, leaves us in the same place doesn?t it?

If no one is disputing that Sanguine is hot and wet, or warm and moist, or that the element of air expresses these qualities, then I don?t see why there is a problem associating Jupiter or the sanguine temperament to the air triplicity. (Apologies if that was perfectly obvious to everyone else, it took some mental clarification on my part )

Hi again Deb

It was very good of him to respond. For one thing we can see more clearly now what his argument is,

Yes, we can and I'm even more convinced now. I agree it was very good of him to respond and at such length. Thanks to Pete for emailing him

In fact the essence of his Mappa Mundi is no different from the standard astrological diagram that associates elements with qualities

But it is different. That's the whole point!

Regardless of whether air is considered warm and moist, or intrinsically cold but warmed by fire and moistened by water, leaves us in the same place doesn?t it?

No, it doesn't. In Little's Mappa Mundi, Air is equated to Cold only. In Plant's diagram it is situated between Hot and Moist - nowhere near the Cold side. I'm beginning to wonder whether we're at cross-purposes here

If no one is disputing that Sanguine is hot and wet, or warm and moist, or that the element of air expresses these qualities, then I don?t see why there is a problem associating Jupiter or the sanguine temperament to the air triplicity. (Apologies if that was perfectly obvious to everyone else, it took some mental clarification on my part )

LOL! No-one is disputing that Sanguine is hot and moist. What I am disputing is that it has any association with, or expresses itself through, the air element. Because it is hot and moist, it should be associated with the fire and water elements. No-one is disputing that Jupiter is hot and moist, but (as I said originally), because Sanguine should be associated with Fire and Water, it makes sense that Jupiter best expresses the Sanguine temperament via these two elements, not Air. And I then went on to say that this makes sense when you consider that Jupiter has dignities in Sag, Pisces and Cancer. Do you see?

I see now. Yes, the light of your argument has dawned.

The problem is the definition of the word ?element?. Astrological elements, (in the sources I?ve seen relating to western astrology ? can?t speak for Indian or Vedic systems) have always been taken as a fusion of the qualities of warmth, cold, dryness and moisture. The Greek philosophical elements have been defined differently by different philosophers, starting at an early stage with those who maintained that one element predominated over all others. Later philosophers argued that there was no dominant element, and that life could only exist through elements being attracted together to create ?humours? which relate to bodily temperaments and characteristics. I don?t know that any of the ancient sources define the relationship between elements and qualities in the simplistic way we are led to believe they do. As a singular quality air has been defined as cooling, at other times as drying. The Hippocratic writings are not very clear on this ? few if any are attributed to Hippocrates anyway and our primary source for understanding his use on the Elements is through Galen?s text ?On the Elements According to Hippocrates?. But the principle that emerges is that individuals are created from the four elements that mix to define four ?humours? or bodily characteristics. The mixture of the qualities of heat and dryness produced the humour that affects yellow bile which causes a choleric reaction, etc.

You made the point that the humours should relate to two elements, and at this philosophical level they do; but it?s two of the philosophical elements (what we call qualities), not two astrological elements. (Ie, sanguine is related to two elements through its fusion of hot and wet, which is a very different perspective to claiming it should be associated with the astrological elements of fire or water). You may disagree because at some point perspective and personal interpretation are going to enter into this.

The Mappi Mundi in the article you referred to has the qualities Hot, Dry, Cold and Wet under the names of Greek elements, which is correct when you put it in the context of Greek philosophical thought, but not in the context of the astrological definition of elements. Remove the classification of hot under the title ?fire?, and leave it as hot to represent a quality, and so on with the others, and that?s where you see the exact match between this diagram and the astrological one I reproduced earlier.
What?s interesting is that the humours appear to have been integrated into the astrological scheme before we started calling the triplicities by the names of the elements. The triplicities were matched to the four directions and the humours were matched to the four seasons, and only then (apparently) to the philosophical elements of Empedocles and his fellow philosophers.

So it?s hardly surprising we?re getting confused. We start with philosophical elements, which mix to become humours, which then take the name of the philosophical elements. This is exactly what David Little explains when he says:

?In Aristotle's version of the five
elements [that is, the four earthly elements + the generative ether] he took the qualities of the Hippocratic humours and tried to relate them to the elements. In this way Aristotle based his elements on the humours rather than the humours on the elements as in the older physiology.?

That is true. And then Galen expanded the medicinal and philosophical use of humours, following which they became firmly integrated into astrology. That doesn?t mean to say that the astrological tradition is wrong. David Little points out that there is no astrological connection implicit in his sources. The works attributed to Hippocrates are far more pragmatic than those that followed Galen, where symbolic correspondences and planetary ?signatures? play a large part in defining astrological philosophy.

The link below includes a discussion on why Hippocrates? elements aren?t to be confused with the symbolic elements used in Greek magical texts. They were linked through philosophy but they weren?t the same.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~struck/classe ... telli.html

Apart from any of that, I?d be reluctant to dismiss the traditional and medieval scheme of humours and temperaments in favour of an alternative scheme based on Hippocratic and pre-Socratic sources because we don?t have a single example of temperaments being judged astrologically from that era. Every astrological judgement that has employed their use has extended from the Aristotelian-Galen scheme. If for no other reason than that means I don?t have to put Aries under the rulership of Venus, that will do for me

Yes, I understand what you are saying, Deb. It seems to come down to medicine vs magic (as per the article you quoted) or pragmatic vs philosophical.

Insofar as astrology is concerned, the emphasis was on the medical side in the use of temperament back in Lilly's day. As for the second argument, I see pragmatic as factual and logical (objective), whereas philosophical is personal opinion (subjective).

You made the point that the humours should relate to two elements, and at this philosophical level they do; but it?s two of the philosophical elements (what we call qualities), not two astrological elements. (Ie, sanguine is related to two elements through its fusion of hot and wet, which is a very different perspective to claiming it should be associated with the astrological elements of fire or water). You may disagree because at some point perspective and personal interpretation are going to enter into this.

True. But even if we don't relate sanguine to fire and water, what is the logic behind relating it to air? You see I don't think the descriptions of a sanguine temperament relate to air at all - not as we understand air astrologically at any rate. As I said earlier, people with a preponderance of air are cool by nature. This is where it doesn't add up (in my opinion at least).

The Mappi Mundi in the article you referred to has the qualities Hot, Dry, Cold and Wet under the names of Greek elements, which is correct when you put it in the context of Greek philosophical thought, but not in the context of the astrological definition of elements. Remove the classification of hot under the title ?fire?, and leave it as hot to represent a quality, and so on with the others, and that?s where you see the exact match between this diagram and the astrological one I reproduced earlier.

Yes, I see what you mean. However, where the astrological diagram doesn't make sense is in the order of the elements, which puts the oppositions in the wrong place. Fire should be opposite Air, and Earth opposite Water, if it's to match up astrologically.

Apart from any of that, I?d be reluctant to dismiss the traditional and medieval scheme of humours and temperaments in favour of an alternative scheme based on Hippocratic and pre-Socratic sources because we don?t have a single example of temperaments being judged astrologically from that era. Every astrological judgement that has employed their use has extended from the Aristotelian-Galen scheme.

Well maybe they got it wrong We don't have any examples because they only used that one scheme. They didn't even try the other one, but that doesn't mean that we can't try it. I've just scored Lilly's merchant's chart using JF's method with Little's diagram. He comes out as totally melancholic. Lilly's scoring was very evenly balanced, erring slightly on the side of choleric. Lilly decided he was sanguine/melancholic, yet the merchant himself describes himself as "absolutely melancholic"! I think this is shown by the preponderance of air in the chart, together with Cap rising and Saturn in Taurus, plus the Sun and Moon being cold and dry. I am going to try it out with other charts - of people I know rather than famous people. The problem with doing famous people is that we don't actually know them - all we know is what the media feeds us.

If for no other reason than that means I don?t have to put Aries under the rulership of Venus, that will do for me

LOL! Well, I never said that Venus should rule Aries. Aries/Libra works ok - it's Taurus/Scorpio that doesn't. Like many astrological theories/methods, there is often a fly in the ointment. That's why astrology cannot be considered a science because it is just too flexible and there are too many variables. It cannot be pinned down - that's why it's ruled by Mercury (quicksilver) And how boring it would be if everything were set in stone!

Enjoying the discussion

That's why astrology cannot be considered a science because it is just too flexible and there are too many variables.

I agree - when you work with it at this level it?s not a science. I have a big problem relating the astrological tradition that most of us work with to science, although I believe that we are a part and parcel of the workings of the cosmos and there are physical and measurable influences that lack scientific respect because we try to bind them into a defence of the symbolic aspects of astrology. The problem for me has always been in where to draw the line between science and philosophy. At some point there is a central connection where qualities express themselves through structure and form and that remains true throughout the physical and symbolic exploration of our universe. Hence great scientific achievements have been made by exploiting the philosophy of astrology, which then ironically call astrological philosophy into question ? I think I might enlarge on this in the ?Mercury governs astrology? thread.

Anyway, back to the element/sanguine/air debate. It sounds like very interesting research and I?m sure you are exploring this at a level that goes beyond my ability to comment, but just a couple of thoughts:

Insofar as astrology is concerned, the emphasis was on the medical side in the use of temperament back in Lilly's day. As for the second argument, I see pragmatic as factual and logical (objective), whereas philosophical is personal opinion (subjective).

I?m not sure that a pragmatic use of Greek philosophical elements remains entirely possible, particularly within the philosophical framework of astrology. Greek elements were the first attempts to define indivisible atoms that blended to create life and remained in existence ready to be moulded into new life upon the death of the individual. Science has progressed and chemical elements are the modern objective equivalents, although the qualities of hot, cold, dry and wet don?t seem easy to replace. Whichever system you apply though, you will be using it mainly at a philosophical level.

But even if we don't relate sanguine to fire and water, what is the logic behind relating it to air? You see I don't think the descriptions of a sanguine temperament relate to air at all - not as we understand air astrologically at any rate. As I said earlier, people with a preponderance of air are cool by nature. This is where it doesn't add up (in my opinion at least).

Sanguine is to some extent expected to be pure, clear, relaxed and not easily stirred to an excess of humour. Before rejecting air signs as sanguine in expression, do you not think that modern astrology has interfered with the traditional understanding of their nature? Libra, I?m sure you?ll agree is sanguine in temperament. All of the air signs are classified as ?humane? and depicted by human figures because they are traditionally known for their easy graces and pleasant social skills. Aquarius has really taken a battering through its association with Uranus, but it?s only in modern texts that you see Aquarians described as eccentric, unsociable, rebellious, etc. Traditionally it is considered a fortunate, easy going and pleasant sign with no inclination towards extremes. They may be restrained or reserved in thought, and of all the air signs most stubborn in opinion, but they lack aggression and moodiness. Even the fixed stars in the constellation Aquarius are regarded as particularly lucky. The traditional reputation extends from their sanguine temperament, and it?s the lack of significance applied to humours and temperaments in modern astrology that has made it easy for popular texts to undermine their sanguine basis.

Air signs relate to the intellect and it?s the reasoning power of sanguine types that make them moderate in humour. It keeps them active so they are not slothful and phlegmatic, keeps them emotionally balanced so they are not overly moody (phlegmatic), allows them to be flexible so they are not too tied into the stability of earth; and tempered so they are not irascible and subject to the readily inflamed passions of fire.

If instead you express sanguine through fire or water, then you are associating a humour that is considered healthful, balanced and moderate with one astrological element that is volatile and spontaneous and another which is impressionable, subject to heavy emotions and physical weakness. Sanguine?s association with air makes perfect sense to me, but I don?t put the emphasis on the astrological element of air being cold. I would have a much harder time conceiving the sanguine humour being expressed by a fire sign such as Aries or a soppy water sign such as Cancer.

Hi Deb
isn't this an interesting exchange of views?
Having read your description of the Sanguine temperament in favour of the Air element, I'd agree but ~sigh~ there seem to be other descriptions of the Sanguine temperament that sound as though they contain much of what we understand of the Fire element!
Here's one, for example, that sounds more Sagittarian than Air ~ although I don't see a source for this description:

http://www.longevitywatch.com/Temperaments.htm

Sanguine Temperament.
A person of this temperament is quick in everything: s/he thinks and speaks quickly, is quick-witted, sharp-minded, and finds the proper word immediately. The person in a group who is the loudest and chats non-stop is definitely the Sanguine. S/he prefers to tell stories, while others merely talk.

A Sanguine person works quickly and makes work into fun. S/he sees excitement in each experience. In everything, s/he sees the flowers, rather than the weeds. Even though s/he may not have more talent or opportunity than the other temperaments, s/he always has more fun. S/he is optimistic and outgoing, emotional and demonstrative. A Sanguine individual is enthusiastic in almost everything; s/he has many ambitions and many ideas. If his/her target, however, is too difficult to achieve, s/he easily gives up. S/he is like a sunny day when the sun and rain occur together. S/he cried a while ago, but s/he is already laughing now.

To be the center of attention comes from the Sanguine?s childhood, when family and teachers doted on him/her; s/he wants it to last a lifetime. His/her desire to be helpful and popular makes him/her volunteer without hesitation. People love the Sanguine. Without them, the world would be dull and without spark and prime, which are the very foundation of the Sanguine temperament.

Sorry if it looks like I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm just trying to piece it all together
Cheers...

Anyway, back to the element/sanguine/air debate. It sounds like very interesting research and I?m sure you are exploring this at a level that goes beyond my ability to comment

Well, I'm sure it will be interesting once I get round to it! I don't know where my slothful side comes from cos I'm not "officially" phlegmatic at all If anyone else has the time or the inclination to try out both methods (on their own chart perhaps?) then I would be very grateful

Sanguine is to some extent expected to be pure, clear, relaxed and not easily stirred to an excess of humour. Before rejecting air signs as sanguine in expression, do you not think that modern astrology has interfered with the traditional understanding of their nature?

Oh, I should think that's more than likely. I'm almost beginning to wonder whether we should be associating the descriptions of temperament with the descriptions of elements & signs at all! Perhaps it is mixing apples and oranges?

Libra, I?m sure you?ll agree is sanguine in temperament.

Up to a point, yes. It depends whose descriptions you are reading. There are so many of them. The ones that describe sanguine as cheerful, optimistic, life-and-soul-of-the-party etc seem more appropriate to fire types than air types. And I know several Librans who can be right whingers - you know, glass half-empty types. IOW more melancholic. Hmmm, I'm degenerating into Sun signs here and obviously with Sun being weak in Libra, the spark's not quite there. I'm now thinking of someone with 5 planets + Asc in Libra and he is more of an introspective, quiet type than some of the sanguine descriptions would suggest he ought to be. He's more like a pensive melancholic.

Air signs relate to the intellect

Yet Little relates melancholic to the intellect, and sanguine to intuition

and it?s the reasoning power of sanguine types that make them moderate in humour. It keeps them active so they are not slothful and phlegmatic, keeps them emotionally balanced so they are not overly moody (phlegmatic), allows them to be flexible so they are not too tied into the stability of earth; and tempered so they are not irascible and subject to the readily inflamed passions of fire.

ok, but could you not also say that it's their "coolness" that keeps them emotionally balanced/not moody/not irascible or passionate etc? (Just thinking aloud here really.)

Sanguine?s association with air makes perfect sense to me, but I don?t put the emphasis on the astrological element of air being cold. I would have a much harder time conceiving the sanguine humour being expressed by a fire sign such as Aries or a soppy water sign such as Cancer.

Well, some of the extrovert-type descriptions of sanguine would fit Aries ok, but I agree about Cancer. Again, I'm wondering whether by trying to make the temperaments fit the elements or vice versa, we are connecting things that don't really lend themselves to being connected at all.

Feeling confused

I'm not sure if you've seen this article Ficina, or if it will help clear up any confusion (probably not, doesn't really dwell on the air sign connection), but you might find it interesting. I meant to mention it before:

Sanguine - The Jupitarean Temperament by Scott Whitters
http://www.skyscript.co.uk/sanguine.html

Thanks for the link, Deb. I remember reading this article a long time ago but it was interesting to read it again. However, I am not convinced. This whole issue is a perfect example of how a theory, any theory, can be backed up with relevant arguments. I.e. it is possible to justify sanguine as airy, and it is also possible to justify it as firey and watery. I guess it's just like house systems - you pick the one you prefer and stick with it. I'm not totally happy with this, but I can't see any way round it.

You do sound frustated
I'm putting a reply in the "AP: Cold & Dry" thread which is partly relevant to what you've written here.

Thanks for the very interesting link about the 4 elements on the website of David Little which I did not see before, although I am familiar with his vision (the link didn't go there directly, because I see this is a very old thread).

Great discussion about it here, and I am certainly going to read it again. I am struggling with it for years now as I think it is the basic of homeopathy just as much as it is of astrology.

Hi, Deb and All

I thought this excerpt from a translation of Hippocrates on the Sacred Disease (Epilepsy) might be of interest in this discussion.

Personally, I tend to think of decumbiture or diagnosis of illness when I think about the humours. I'm not very versed in "temperament", I must admit. Hippocrates did speak a bit about "types", as you can see in the excerpt below.

Interestingly, I have seen some modern explanations of eplilepsy which contain striking parallels to this passage.

As it applies to disease and the four humours, no matter what we think of air being "cold", blood, (the fluid which embodies the Sanguine humour) nevetheless, is warm. And the function of blood is to distribute air to all the parts of the body, as Hippocrates was well aware. Below, he describes how (to the best of his understanding) a disturbance to the distribution of blood (air) caused an epileptic seizure. So "air" as it exists as an element outside the human body may be cool, but the humour that conveys "air" through our bodies (blood) is warm.

Warm regards
with apologies for the pun. . .

Spirlhelix

http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/sacred.1b.txt

From _The Sacred Disease_ by Hippocrates

"But the brain is the cause of this affection, as it is of other very
great diseases, and in what manner and from what cause it is formed,
I will now plainly declare. The brain of man, as in all other animals,
is double, and a thin membrane divides it through the middle, and
therefore the pain is not always in the same part of the head; for
sometimes it is situated on either side, and sometimes the whole is
affected; and veins run toward it from all parts of the body, many
of which are small, but two are thick, the one from the liver, and
the other from the spleen. And it is thus with regard to the one from
the liver: a portion of it runs downward through the parts on the
side, near the kidneys and the psoas muscles, to the inner part of
the thigh, and extends to the foot. It is called vena cava. The other
runs upward by the right veins and the lungs, and divides into branches
for the heart and the right arm. The remaining part of it rises upward
across the clavicle to the right side of the neck, and is superficial
so as to be seen; near the ear it is concealed, and there it divides;
its thickest, largest, and most hollow part ends in the brain; another
small vein goes to the right ear, another to the right eye, and another
to the nostril. Such are the distributions of the hepatic vein. And
a vein from the spleen is distributed on the left side, upward and
downward, like that from the liver, but more slender and feeble.

By these veins we draw in much breath, since they are the spiracles
of our bodies inhaling air to themselves and distributing it to the
rest of the body, and to the smaller veins, and they and afterwards
exhale it. For the breath cannot be stationary, but it passes upward
and downward, for if stopped and intercepted, the part where it is
stopped becomes powerless. In proof of this, when, in sitting or lying,
the small veins are compressed, so that the breath from the larger
vein does not pass into them, the part is immediately seized with
numbness; and it is so likewise with regard to the other veins.


This malady, then, affects phlegmatic people, but not bilious. It
begins to be formed while the foetus is still in utero. For the brain,
like the other organs, is depurated and grows before birth. If, then,
in this purgation it be properly and moderately depurated, and neither
more nor less than what is proper be secreted from it, the head is
thus in the most healthy condition. If the secretion (melting) the
from the brain be greater than natural, the person, when he grows
up, will have his head diseased, and full of noises, and will neither
be able to endure the sun nor cold. Or, if the melting take place
from any one part, either from the eye or ear, or if a vein has become
slender, that part will be deranged in proportion to the melting.
Or, should depuration not take place, but congestion accumulate in
the brain, it necessarily becomes phlegmatic. And such children as
have an eruption of ulcers on the head, on the ears, and along the
rest of the body, with copious discharges of saliva and mucus,-these,
in after life, enjoy best health; for in this way the phlegm which
ought to have been purged off in the womb, is discharged and cleared
away, and persons so purged, for the most part, are not subject to
attacks of this disease. But such as have had their skin free from
eruptions, and have had no discharge of saliva or mucus, nor have
undergone the proper purgation in the womb, these persons run the
risk of being seized with this disease.

But should the defluxion make its way to the heart, the person is
seized with palpitation and asthma, the chest becomes diseased, and
some also have curvature of the spine. For when a defluxion of cold
phlegm takes place on the lungs and heart, the blood is chilled, and
the veins, being violently chilled, palpitate in the lungs and heart,
and the heart palpitates, so that from this necessity asthma and orthopnoea
supervene. For it does not receive the spirits as much breath as he
needs until the defluxion of phlegm be mastered, and being heated
is distributed to the veins, then it ceases from its palpitation and
difficulty of breathing, and this takes place as soon as it obtains
an abundant supply; and this will be more slowly, provided the defluxion
be more abundant, or if it be less, more quickly. And if the defluxions
be more condensed, the epileptic attacks will be more frequent, but
otherwise if it be rarer. Such are the symptoms when the defluxion
is upon the lungs and heart; but if it be upon the bowels, the person
is attacked with diarrhoea.

And if, being shut out from all these outlets, its defluxion be determined
to the veins I have formerly mentioned, the patient loses his speech,
and chokes, and foam issues by the mouth, the teeth are fixed, the
hands are contracted, the eyes distorted, he becomes insensible, and
in some cases the bowels are evacuated. And these symptoms occur sometimes
on the left side, sometimes on the right, and sometimes in both. The
cause of everyone of these symptoms I will now explain. The man becomes
speechless when the phlegm, suddenly descending into the veins, shuts
out the air, and does not admit it either to the brain or to the vena
cava, or to the ventricles, but interrupts the inspiration. For when
a person draws in air by the mouth and nostrils, the breath goes first
to the brain, then the greater part of it to the internal cavity,
and part to the lungs, and part to the veins, and from them it is
distributed to the other parts of the body along the veins; and whatever
passes to the stomach cools, and does nothing more; and so also with
regard to the lungs. But the air which enters the veins is of use
(to the body) by entering the brain and its ventricles, and thus it
imparts sensibility and motion to all the members, so that when the
veins are excluded from the air by the phlegm and do not receive it,
the man loses his speech and intellect, and the hands become powerless,
and are contracted, the blood stopping and not being diffused, as
it was wont; and the eyes are distorted owing to the veins being excluded
from the air; and they palpitate; and froth from the lungs issues
by the mouth. For when the breath does not find entrance to him, he
foams and sputters like a dying person. And the bowels are evacuated
in consequence of the violent suffocation; and the suffocation is
produced when the liver and stomach ascend to the diaphragm, and the
mouth of the stomach is shut up; this takes place when the breath
does not enter by the mouth, as it is wont. The patient kicks with
his feet when the air is shut up in the lungs and cannot find an outlet,
owing to the phlegm; and rushing by the blood upward and downward,
it occasions convulsions and pain, and therefore he kicks with his
feet. All these symptoms he endures when the cold phlegm passes into
the warm blood, for it congeals and stops the blood. And if the deflexion
be copious and thick, it immediately proves fatal to him, for by its
cold it prevails over the blood and congeals it; or, if it be less,
it in the first place obtains the mastery, and stops the respiration;
and then in the course of time, when it is diffused along the veins
and mixed with much warm blood, it is thus overpowered, the veins
receive the air, and the patient recovers his senses."