Therese wrote:

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.

Well we all have preferences. However, in regards a system of assessing astrological temperament Ptolemy is the basic originator of the whole approach. So to leave him out is leaving a massive hole in any attempt to understand the traditional approach to temperament.

Valens hasn't left behind a temperament theory. You cant really assess a person using the scant references in the Anthology. Valens does make our first distinct reference to the elements associated with signs. However, this is a very long way away from a fully fledged technique as we have described by Ptolemy.

As for the Persian and Arabs they are largely deriving their approach to temperament from Ptolemy. The only exceptions being the qualities associated with signs which seems to derive from Galen. Equally, different approaches to the planets essential nature developed and one could adopt those.

Mark

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

I don't agree here. The temperament system was a codified system very logic and working too for many aspects. Think to herbal medicine . It worked and in many cases anticipated modern medicine because it was based on temperament theory.

Moreover I agree with Tom, there is not just temperament. Temperament can be one side but what Ptolemy calls "soul" , psychological qualities are other. They can have different significators, because they depend on different planets.

In fact there are authors like Montulmo who try to conciliate them using for determining the ruler of the soul the Ascendant too.

Temperament is more innate, is a priori. Think to Schettino, a typical - for me- phlegmatic (even if with social side but without the generosity of the sanguine). In the difficulty the first thought is for him. It's not his fault in a sense, it's a just a phlegmatic.

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.

There are several authors like Della Porta who talk about the 7 planets and give the qualities of the native. But then he always says that these qualities don't come from the star, but from the temperament.

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.

I know
In my opinion in the English literature there is not a systematic comment to Tetrabiblos. And Ptolemy should be explained a little because it is not always evident and so maybe it is not evident that things are more variegate of what it seems, that some authors commented a way and others in the opposite sense... It's difficult to explain, let us say that I have read even explication line by line.

In every case I know you used qualities taken by several authors, but I'm not sure they really would consider all the planets, stellium included. It sounds a little modern to me, but honestly I don't know.

In every case Fern case is strange to me too, too much Mars.
margherita

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.

mmm the problem I have here is that there seems to be a lot of differences in the systems on offer (irrespective of which zodiac we use). They can often produce a quite different outcome depending on how you approach various issues.

Here are some of them:

1 Some use the qualities of the signs -some dont ( e.g. Ptolemy)
2 Some rely on the essential nature of planets others rely more heavily on their solar phase. In contemporary approaches compare Greenbaum, Frawley and Luis Ribeiro.
3 Dignities. Different triplicity and term (bound) rulers. In particular Ptolemy vs Dorothean triplicities or Egyptian bounds.
4 How do we assess rulers of ASC or Moon? Some medievals use domicile ruler + Almuten. Some use just use domicile ruler. Others look at all the planetary rulers using all 5 dignities equally without an Almuten. Some ignore face ruler (decan) e.g. Montulmo.
5 Planets in 1st house ASC. Some systems ignore planets in ASC or aspecting it as this is seen as an accidental dignity. Greenbaum adopts this attitude.
6 Confusion over whether to use the luminaries as ASC ruler
7 Solar season. Some argue Ptolemy wasn't suggesting we use Solar season as part of the calculation. Instead chart quadrants from the angles are used. Examples Guiseppe Bezza and Margherita Fiorello.
8 Some use planetary ruler of the Moon other use its sign.
9 Fixed stars. Some sources use these others dont.

Then there are basic issues like what house system do we use? Relevant if we include planets in the first house affecting temperament.

So if we were going to conduct such a test we need an agreed system which could be very difficult.

Mark

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.

I haven't looked at Fern's chart, much less worked out a temperament using Greenbaum's or any other method, And I may disagree with Greenbaum, that's permitted. I only based my conclusion on the little bit I've read here.

My entire quote was:

More often than not you have to look at the individual long and hard to see it.

By omitting the words "More often than not" and substituting "must" (whether inside or outside of the quotes) you changed the meaning of what I wrote. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.

Stellarium wrote: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, I believe that what is important are the equinoxes and solstices. I think western sidereal astrologers are barking up the wrong tree with their cardinal ingress charts. However, a chart that seems to be working for major quakes is the solar ingress chart for signs of the sidereal zodiac, but only with the Krishnamurti ayanamsa. (That is, the entrance of the Sun into the signs.)The Fagan value ingress gives a chart close to that, but the Moon is off by some degrees. Sigh....this is one of those research projects that lies unpublished in my files. I could use an office manager and a secretary.

Thanks for finally mentioning the sidereal zodiac.

Therese

Tom wrote:

By omitting the words "More often than not" and substituting "must" (whether inside or outside of the quotes) you changed the meaning of what I wrote. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.

Certainly not purposely done. Apologies.

Therese, when you use the Sidereal zodiac, do you just use all of the traditional concepts like bounds, trigon lords of the sect light, Zodiacal Releasing etc. but only in a different zodiac than what most others use or do you adapt these concepts at all?

Martin wrote:

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.

I agree. There are many ways to test the zodiacs other than ingress charts. As I said above, I don't have faith in sidereal cardinal ingress charts over the equinox and solstice charts. These are important points in the solar cycle. India actually uses these four cyclic charts plus two others.

There are diverse views in the sidereal community. Those who follow the Fagan school are now mainly few, far between, and (May I say it?) aging. Jyotish principles have more or less taken over the sidereal community, and there it gets very interesting because of the similarity between Jyotish and Hellenistic/Arabic principles.

I am not going to preview this post for errors because my computer keeps giving me internal server errors.

Therese

Margherita wrote:

In every case Fern case is strange to me too, too much Mars.

Which is why I began with her chart as an illustration of planets in the sidereal signs. Mars disappears in favor of Saturn and an afflicted Venus (Venus in fall in Virgo)

I'm puzzled, actually, why no one has commented on her sidereal chart. Maybe it will help if I find a way to post the chart here. It's difficult to visualize a chart without seeing it.

Konrad wrote:Therese, when you use the Sidereal zodiac, do you just use all of the traditional concepts like bounds, trigon lords of the sect light, Zodiacal Releasing etc. but only in a different zodiac than what most others use or do you adapt these concepts at all?

I use these exactly as they are used by tropical astrologers, and they seem to work well. No adaptation or change. The reason I began this thread was to deomonstrate how these concepts work sidereally since I've been experimenting with the traditional techniques.

I was encouraged to post here due to the recent discovery of tablets containing the terms in Mesopoatamia, and also the work of Alexander Jones. But the discussion has gone off on tangents rather than staying central to the topic at hand. This apparently happened because I posted the long introduction about sidereal signs and qualities.

Thank your for your question, Konrad. Much appreciated! I'd love to get back on topic.

I tried to go to the link that gave directions on how to post a chart, but the link stalled out. I would appreciate instructions if anyone can help. Right now (10 am California time) there seems to be server trouble. I'll wait until evening when European traffic is less.

Therese

I can post it for you if you want? Though I would need to know which zodiac to use. I have Solar Fire.

Why not use Horary as a simple, clear-cut test of whether the sidereal zodiac works as well as the tropical?

Konrad wrote:Why not use Horary as a simple, clear-cut test of whether the sidereal zodiac works as well as the tropical?

I do horary as well as natal work using only the (or, rather, a) sidereal zodiac, and it certainly works for me. (Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Indian astrologers would of course say the same.) But I am wary of the idea of simple, clear-cut tests. I have certainly seen charts that baffle me (horary and natal), and so have all astrologers with any experience, whether tropical or sidereal. It is my honest opinion that, overall, sidereal charts work better; but in the end, there are only seven classical planets from which to choose your significators, and not infrequently, a given configuration will prove decisive in a judgement irrespective of which zodiac is used. Not always, of course -- just often enough to cast doubt on the 'simple, clear-cut' idea. Not to mention the consideration that there are many different views on which rules to use in judging a chart. Mark mentioned this in relation to ingress charts, but it applies equally to horary and natal.