james_m wrote:the way i understand using the trigon lords doing hellenistic is first looking at the trigon lords off the luminary of sect. in staceys chart this would be sun in aquarius which has as trigon lords saturn and mercury with jupiter also participating - dorotheus triplicity system.

with darcy the moon in virgo has as trigon lords the moon, venus and mars participating..

in staceys chart the moon is very strong on the ascendant degree.. if we use the trigon lords of the ascendant which are the same as the moon we get the sun, jupiter and saturn participating.. either way the 4th quadrant is quite strong suggesting the sanguine temperament on the basis of this alone.

Thanks for getting these charts posted so quickly, James! For myself I wouldn't use the participating trigon lords in a study of temperament, as they really belong to another trigon. I suppose they have their uses, but I don't believe they should be applied for temperament. I'm not even sure we should be looking at the secondary trigon lord for the sect light.

For the time being it seems that planets aspecting the ascendant may have a greater sway than the sect light if the sect light is tucked away in a a less significant area of the chart.

Therese

that makes sense therese. maybe we can stop and review what we have done so far as opposed to adding more charts to the thread?

blair has sun and moon in the 4th quadrant from ascendant to midheaven which again suggests a stronger sanguine emphasis..


upload foto

James, these are all the temperament charts I plan to post for now. Four melancholic and three sanguine. So let's see if they generate some discussion that will teach us something. Many thanks again for posting the charts. Very helpful!

I calculated your chart, James, and your wife is right. You are a grand mixture:
Moon in choleric Scorpio, but opposed by a sanguine Venus in Taurus
Saturn in Scorpio with the Moon: a touch of melancholy
Jupiter at the top of the chart in choleric Cancer
You have a strong Uranian influence. Uranus is on your navamsa ascendant and trine your natal ascendant.

Domicile lord of the Ascendant is Mars in Sagittarius. As far as temperament goes, I haven't figured out the Aries triplicity yet. The only temperament left is phlegmatic, and that doesn't seem suitable for the Sun-Jupiter trigon. But I haven't reviewed charts yet. For the melancholic and sanguine charts there was no particular emphasis on Aries, Leo and Sag. I know that the Cancer trigon is choleric.

Moon on the ascendant is your sect light, so Mars is its trigon lord in Sagittarius. Also sanguine Venus.

Pluto in Leo should be important since it squares your ascendant from house 10, but I haven't figured out Leo yet. (That would be tropical Virgo.)

If I had to limit you to two temperament types, they would be choleric/sanguine. Check out that combination in Greenbaum's book.

The reason you can't figure out your primary temperament is because you are indeed a grand mixture! So enjoy your mixed identity!

The reason we're having these conversations is because your Ascendant and Moon conjoin my Mercury in Scorpio.

Therese

thanks therese, i appreciate it! well, you can see the synastry. that is cool!

i think i am more 'wet' then 'dry'. i have this desire to reach out and connect with others which i associate with wetness. however i can go it alone and have lived like a hermit for a number of years prior to being with my wife susan of 22 years. the moon/saturn on the ascendant seems to suggest this to me.

the 2 wet temperaments are sanguine and phlegmatic. in any mix i would say i am more wet then dry, however when i read those mixed descriptions the one that i relate to the best is the phlegmatic/melancholic.. i admit that i can see some truth to all of them however which is part of the reason i ponder the idea of being a mix of all 4!!!

i like this simple breakdown of wet, dry, or hot, cold for a description of temperament. the 4 temperaments are a mix of 2 in any direction. perhaps i can comment on the charts sometime tomorrow. i have a busy day today. cheers james

It's important to understand that temperament as defined and used in Dorian Greenbaum's book...and this is very important...APPLIES ONLY IN THE TROPICAL ZODIAC. I have used some of the birth charts in Greenbaum's book to help describe the sidereal triplicities because those children have been professionally typed for temperament.

However, in puzzling over the only remaining temperament (phlegmatic), and wondering how it could ever be applied to the remaining Aries triplicity, I did some research on the Internet which was very enlightening. In short, there are other ways to understand temperament.

Here is a very interesting link I found which greatly helps to clarify temperamental dispositions in relation to the sidereal triplicities. The author of the site is Elizabeth G. Melillo, Ph.D, doctor of humanities with a particular interest in medieval culture and ascetic theology. (A very short autobiography is on Amazon.)

http://www.gloriana.nu/temperaments.html

The explanations Dr. Melillo gives regarding the temperaments are truly eye opening, and they make us realize our shortcomings as astrologers in understanding the concepts of temperament. Dr. Melillo's description of the phlegmatic temperament suits Aristotle's description of "Hot" and the sidereal Aries triplicity to a "T." Here are some excerpts:

"Frequently....they can be extraordinary scholars...Those intellectually gifted have the unique ability to be something approaching purely cognitive. Neither passion nor the need for attention will cloud their judgement and speculation...The very lack of passion inherent in the phlegmatic, which can appear to be indifference in relationships with others, will keep their intellectual vision from becoming clouded.

"The phlegmatic have a degree of detachment that makes for great minds, but does not foster warm relationships....the phlegmatic is the translator, writer, scientist - and quite possibly, creator of illuminated manuscripts."

To compare this to Aristotle's HOT (which can also be related to the Stoic FIRE which had only one designation: Hot)

Aries, Leo, Sagittarius (sky area of tropical earth signs)
Labeled HOT and composed of:
Active quality: motivation and creative energy drawn from within (the psychological mainframe)
Masculine type: mental orientation, use of the mind

Triplicity lords:
Sun (From Dykes: benevolent, light, splendor, reason and intellect, strength, victory, lofty mind, wisdom, supremacy of first place, power, forcefulness)
Jupiter (regal, powerful, moderate, generous, happy, humorous, firmness, wisdom, patience, hope, joy, sharpness of mind, boldness, esteemed)

And there we have it, I believe. The symbolism in the sidereal zodiac is clear and coherent. Dr. Melillo's descriptions of all four temperaments are the best I have seen anywhere, and go far beyond the descriptions of temperament in children in Greenbaum's book.

There is a significant difference in the qualities of the temperaments in medieval texts and Aristotle's early four qualities of hot, cold, wet and dry, as well as the Stoic designations. For example, the Stoic Air was simply Cold, but the medieval Air is hot and wet. This comparison is an interesting study, and also illustrates an important difference between the tropical and sidereal zodiacs.

Therese

note - this is a special edit for therese who has told me privately that she is unable to read my paragraphs as they are too long.. hopefully this works for you therese,

hi therese,

i think greenbaums book is very good in that it doesn't just rely on one period of history to define the meaning and use of the idea of temperament. it is a more thorough study on the topic that would be hard to replicate and is thus an invaluable source for anyone studying this concept..

yes, it is also couched in the tropical zodiac, but that is only a part of it.

i think anyone who reads the book recognizes very quickly that there are some disconnects when bringing planet and sign meanings together to form a perspective on temperament using these ideas of wet, dry, cold and hot.. the language has its limitations.

i did read the link you provided with dr. mellilos comments on the temperaments.. clearly she isn't involved in astrology, or if she has studied it any it is not so obvious.

i thought she had some interesting things to say about temperament, but feel like the biggest disconnect was with her comments on the phlegmatic temperament.

my impression is a desire on your part to use temperament to prove the validity of the sidereal zodiac as the ""correct"" zodiac and for some reason i can't erase this impression from my viewpoint on where you want to go with the conversation here..

correct me if i am wrong. on the other hand i have no such agenda other then a better understanding of how temperament might be found thru the study of astrology.. i don't really care what zodiac is used to do this, but it is making me think about the basis for the 2 zodiacs more strongly as a result..

obviously there is a cross over with many ideas and techniques that may or may not have originated with one or the other. i see them as 2 different reference points myself. the tropic zodiac defines the relationship between the sun and planets as viewed from planet earth, while the sidereal zodiac views the sun in relation to other stars and the position of earth in response to that..

i don't think one zodiac negates the other. however for us to understand the use of temperament in relation to either presents a challenge as the concept might have been coming from a basis in one particular zodiac more then the other.. i don't know the history well enough to comment on this..

what i do know is the common tendency to make a connection between the elements and the 4 temperaments.. whether this was based on a particular zodiac, i tend to doubt it..

it has always been my belief that making a connection with the planets and human behaviour and traits is really the first most obvious connection.. for this to happen, it doesn't require a zodiac!!!

when i think saturn is melancholic for example, i am not thinking it all hinges on what sign or zodiac saturn is in!! perhaps this allows me a type of freedom that those committed to a particular zodiac don't have in seeing the importance of the planet outweighing the importance of a particular sign.

on the other hand i do think that the 4 seasons and these ideas of wet, dry, hot and cold have an obvious connection so in this sense i can see an immediate connection with the basic ideas of temperament and the seasonal focus that defines much of the tropical zodiac..

i have a harder time seeing it with the sidereal zodiac if i emphasize the sign positions which is what it seems like you are most intent on doing! if we leave out sign positions what happens? i don't think the astro symbolism breaks down as quickly as others might..

if astrology is primarily focused on the planets, nothing has changed! if planetary aspects or relationships with other planets is an important consideration, it still hasn't changed.. if it is about the planetary position relative to the time of day - houses and ascendant or midheaven axis, it still hasn't changed...

for this reason i see the importance of signs as over-rated and in particular by those who want to resolve what i said earlier i believe are 2 equally valid reference points to viewing astrology.. i suppose i am a dis-believer in the divide and conquer mindset and go back to wanting to see the relativity in either way of believing or practicing astrology..

one word that the article mentioned that i would like to comment on is the word 'react'.. to quote from your first link

"A dear friend of mine had an excellent way of expressing the differences between the temperaments that I shall quote here.

The basic difference between each is the amount of time it takes one to react and the duration of the resultant reaction. The sanguine reaction will be quick but brief, the phlegmatic's long and brief, the choleric's quick and enduring, and the melancholic's lengthy and permanent.

This simple definition has more relevance than appears at first glance."

i believe it is the moon that 'reacts' more then any other planetary body in use by astrologers.. this might explain why the position of the moon and the aspects it forms, or the house and sign position are more central to a study of temperament..

it has to do with the semi conscious or unconscious expression of the moon and our inability to recognize how our 'temperament' is something inescapable only in so far as we remain prisoner to it in not being able to see it consciously..

this to me is one of the great benefits of astrology - we are given the opportunity to get a more conscious read on our own or others inclinations, or predisposition to respond or react as certain way..

of course response implies a greater degree of objectivity then react does. in so far as we are able to respond, we have greater freedom from our tribal or ancestral patterns that again i believe reflect the moon and the family patterns we have a deep and less conscious awareness of..

so, i thought her focus on her friends comments on this way of defining temperament was most interesting for these reasons i have tried to articulate here.

James wrote:

hi therese,
my impression is a desire on your part to use temperament to prove the validity of the sidereal zodiac as the ""correct"" zodiac and for some reason i can't erase this impression from my viewpoint on where you want to go with the conversation here.. correct me if i am wrong.

Well, of course you are right, James. This is a sidereal forum, isn't it? Why would I want to support tropical concepts here? There are many thousands of posts on Skyscript that do that. In contrast sidereal astrologers have only this one very small section of Skyscript where they can post their ideas.

Therese

Therese Hamilton wrote: This is a sidereal forum, isn't it? Therese

yes, you have come to the right place therese.

Therese Hamilton wrote: Why would I want to support tropical concepts here? Therese

did i ask you to support a tropical concept? please point that out to me as i missed it! i believe i mentioned in my last post, i don't think the concept of temperament hinges on which zodiac a person uses.

greenbaums book which you have opted to focus on was written using the tropical zodiac... perhaps you'd like to debate greenbaum and her choice of doing this? i am not able to comment about why greenbaum opted to do the charts in her book in tropical zodiac, but i think it is fair to discuss the tropical zodiac in so far as all the examples are from her book!

i haven't made which zodiac is the best zodiac the focus of the conversation but i get the impression now that you'd like to..

Therese Hamilton wrote:James wrote:

hi therese,
my impression is a desire on your part to use temperament to prove the validity of the sidereal zodiac as the ""correct"" zodiac and for some reason i can't erase this impression from my viewpoint on where you want to go with the conversation here.. correct me if i am wrong.

Well, of course you are right, James.
Therese

if you want to discuss temperament, let me know.. if you want to discuss which is the right zodiac to use, im not interested..

Therese Hamilton wrote:For this topic we all need to remember that this is a sidereal forum. Anyone is free to accept, reject or modify material here. But this is not the place to argue the tropical point of view. The sidereal concepts introduced here are unique, and deserve their own study without entanglement with tropical concepts which have an entirely different starting premise.

Therese, I must say I think it's strange that you say this, when the remainder of your posts here focus on contrasting the sidereal and tropical zodiacs with regards Temperament. Surely we can just examine it sidereally here without comparing to the tropical.

The tropical labels of fire, earth, air and water have no relationship to the sidereal signs ... (In the tropical zodiac air signs are opposite fire, and earth signs are opposite water.)

In what sense have the elements no relationship to the sidereal signs? Many sidereal astrologers do indeed use the elements. Vettius Valens is one of (if not the) first hellenistic astrologer to explicitly refer to the signs as being fiery, airy, earthy and watery - and he was using a sidereal measurement.

Now that a sidereal foundation has been introduced, these qualities can be correlated to the four triplicities of the zodiac

I didn't understand how this was a sidereal foundation. Surely it is just a philosophical foundation? There is nothing particularly sidereal about it, we could make the same arguments for whatever zodiac we chose right?

These qualities can be illustrated with sidereal charts from Dorian Greenbaum's Temperament: Astrology's Forgotten Key .
...
Next we tend to find the appropriate sidereal trigon prominent in extreme temperament charts of children described in Dorian Greenbaum's book.
...
For a sidereal study we can begin with the most extreme case of melancholia in Greenbaum's book
...
It's important to understand that temperament as defined and used in Dorian Greenbaum's book...and this is very important...APPLIES ONLY IN THE TROPICAL ZODIAC. I have used some of the birth charts in Greenbaum's book to help describe the sidereal triplicities because those children have been professionally typed for temperament.

I don't understand where the last of these quotes fits in with the rest. I do not understand the distinction where we are looking at Dorian Greenbaum's book to understand her definition of the Temperaments only to later conclude that they only apply in the Tropical Zodiac.


Ultimately, like James, I do not see much in Temperament theory which necessitates the use of one particular zodiac over other - arguably the time we most likely do this is with regards taking into consideration the season (ie Aries - Gemini is spring and pertains to the Sanguine temperament). I have not yet read Greenbaum's book however, I do have it ordered because so many have spoken favourably about it, so perhaps Dorian Greenbaum explicitly states this is to be used in Tropical only?

Paul wrote:

Therese, I must say I think it's strange that you say this, when the remainder of your posts here focus on contrasting the sidereal and tropical zodiacs with regards Temperament. Surely we can just examine it sidereally here without comparing to the tropical.

That's what I planned, but if another poster (James) brings up tropical symbolism and techniques, then it's only polite to reply. However, I did mention the tropical Scorpio stellium in Fern's chart.

Therese:
The tropical labels of fire, earth, air and water have no relationship to the sidereal signs ... (In the tropical zodiac air signs are opposite fire, and earth signs are opposite water.) [Whereas Aristotle has fire opposite water and air opposite earth.]

Paul:
In what sense have the elements no relationship to the sidereal signs? Many sidereal astrologers do indeed use the elements. Vettius Valens is one of (if not the) first Hellenistic astrologer to explicitly refer to the signs as being fiery, airy, earthy and watery - and he was using a sidereal measurement.

The tropical labels don't relate to sidereal signs. Yes, Jyotish astrologers do use element labels for their signs, and this began with B.V. Raman around 1940. In my opinion this labeling is an incorrect "add-on" to India's classical astrology. Contemporary Jyotish authors have copied both the tropical element labels and meanings to the sidereal zodiac. This is neither logical nor correct.

Valens used the Stoic elements which gave only one quality to each element: fire = hot; air = cold; earth = dry; water = wet (We know in his Anthology that Valens referred to air as ice cold.) So Stoic elements align somewhat with Aristotle's hot, cold, wet and dry. For example, Stoic symbolism considered Fire (the power of life) and Air (breath) to be active. (Active = sustaining; Passive = sustained) http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi143/stoaphys.htm (The Physics of the Stoics)

Therese:
Now that a sidereal foundation has been introduced, these qualities can be correlated to the four triplicities of the zodiac

Paul:
I didn't understand how this was a sidereal foundation. Surely it is just a philosophical foundation? There is nothing particularly sidereal about it, we could make the same arguments for whatever zodiac we chose right?

Yes, it's philosophical. Use it with the tropical zodiac if you like. See how it comes out in relation to characteristics that have been observed in the tropical signs. Unlike tropical astrology, sidereal astrology can't use seasonal symbolism since the sidereal signs aren't related to the seasons. So sidereally a philosophical approach seems to work fairly well.

Therese:
It's important to understand that temperament as defined and used in Dorian Greenbaum's book...and this is very important...APPLIES ONLY IN THE TROPICAL ZODIAC. I have used some of the birth charts in Greenbaum's book to help describe the sidereal triplicities because those children have been professionally typed for temperament.

Paul:
I don't understand where the last of these quotes fits in with the rest. I do not understand the distinction where we are looking at Dorian Greenbaum's book to understand her definition of the Temperaments only to later conclude that they only apply in the Tropical Zodiac.

Certain techniques apply only in the tropical zodiac. Temperament is with the child, and can be studied in various ways and in different zodiacs. I didn't state that very well. I meant to say that many of the techniques Greenbaum uses to define temperament apply in the tropical zodiac. For example, temperament considerations related to sign elements can't be used in the sidereal chart. A "hot and wet" tropical sign isn't a hot and wet sign in the sidereal zodiac. And so forth.

Paul:
Ultimately, like James, I do not see much in Temperament theory which necessitates the use of one particular zodiac.

Each zodiac has to stay with techniques suitable to that zodiac. If this is done, then the signatures for temperament should come out to be fairly similar whether the astrologer uses tropical or sidereal symbolism.

Thanks Therese

Your reply clarifies some confusion I had reading through the thread.

I think part of the problem with regards the tropical bit is that even before james joined the thread, for example in your second post, you compare against the tropical coordinates. It is difficult in situations like this if we are to do this kind of thing to not continue comparing and contrasting.

The tropical labels don't relate to sidereal signs. Yes, Jyotish astrologers do use element labels for their signs, and this began with B.V. Raman around 1940. In my opinion this labeling is an incorrect "add-on" to India's classical astrology.

But are we examining Temperament using the sideral zodiac or are we doing using Jyotish methods? If not the latter, then why does it matter what the Jyotish tradition is on this? It is surely irrelevant whether or not the Jyotish astrologers used elements, because we know that sidereal astrologers use elements. Vettius Valens being one obvious example as he's one of the very first to make explicit reference to describing the signs elementally and was a sidereal astrologer (either that or you assume he is a tropical one?). So I have to say I don't know what you mean when you say that elements have no relationship to the sidereal signs when we have examples of sidereal astrologers relating their signs to the elements. It doesn't matter greatly, I'm just curious really.

Certain techniques apply only in the tropical zodiac. Temperament is with the child, and can be studied in various ways and in different zodiacs. I didn't state that very well. I meant to say that many of the techniques Greenbaum uses to define temperament apply in the tropical zodiac. For example, temperament considerations related to sign elements can't be used in the sidereal chart. A "hot and wet" tropical sign isn't a hot and wet sign in the sidereal zodiac. And so forth.

I am not sure I follow, if I say that tropical Gemini is hot and moist, then is this because of some philosophical reason, or because of some seasonal concern (ie a tropical reason)? In what sense then could I, or could I not, say that Sidereal Gemini is also hot and moist? What determines whether a sign is hot and moist etc.?